Diabetes

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Individuals of South Asian ancestry face twice the risk of heart disease, compared with individuals of European descent, yet existing risk calculators fail to account for this disparity, according to the results of a new study.

These findings confirm previous reports and practice guidelines that identify South Asian ancestry as a risk enhancer for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), suggesting that earlier heart disease screening and prevention is warranted in this patient population, lead author Aniruddh P. Patel, MD, research fellow at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues said.

“Previous studies in multiple countries have estimated a 1.7- to 4-fold higher risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, compared with other ancestries, but have important potential limitations,” Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in the paper on their prospective cohort study, published in Circulation.

The INTERHEART case-control study, for example, which assessed risk factors for acute myocardial infarction among more than 15,000 cases from 52 countries, is now 2 decades old, and “may not reflect recent advances in cardiovascular disease prevention,” the investigators wrote.

Most studies in the area have been small and retrospective, they added, and have not adequately assessed emerging risk factors, such as prediabetes, which appear to play a relatively greater role in the development of heart disease among South Asians.
 

Methods and results

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Patel and colleagues analyzed data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, including 449,349 middle-aged participants of European ancestry and 8,124 similarly aged participants of South Asian descent who did not have heart disease upon enrollment. Respective rates of incident ASCVD (i.e., MI, ischemic stroke, or coronary revascularization) were analyzed in the context of a variety of lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical factors.

After a median follow-up of 11.1 years, individuals of South Asian descent had an incident ASCVD rate of 6.8%, compared with 4.4% for individuals of European descent, representing twice the relative risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.86-2.22; P < .001). Even after accounting for all covariates, risk of ASCVD remained 45% higher for South Asian individuals (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.28-1.65; P < .001). This elevation in risk was not captured by existing risk calculators, including the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations, or the QRISK3 equations.

The findings were “largely consistent across a range of age, sex, and clinical subgroups,” and “confirm and extend previous reports that hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity are the leading associations in this observed disparity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Two diabetes subtypes are more prevalent in South Asians

Hypertension, diabetes, and central adiposity do not fully explain South Asians’ higher risk for ASCVD, wrote Namratha R. Kandula, MD, of Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, and Alka M. Kanaya, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial published in Circulation.

Some of the undetected risk may stem from unique diabetes disease factors, Dr. Kandula and Dr. Kanaya added.

“Newer data have demonstrated distinct subtypes of type 2 diabetes, with South Asians having a higher prevalence of both a severe insulin resistant with obesity subtype and a less recognized severe insulin deficient subtype,” they wrote. “Importantly, both of these more prevalent diabetes subtypes in South Asians were associated with a higher incidence of coronary artery calcium, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis and strong predictor of future ASCVD, compared to other diabetes subtypes.”
 

Diabetes rate is higher for South Asians in the U.S.

Although the present study was conducted in the United Kingdom, the findings likely apply to individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United States, according to principal author Amit V. Khera, MD, associate director of the precision medicine unit at the Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.

“There are already more than 5 million individuals of South Asian ancestry in the U.S. and this represents one of the fastest-growing ethnic subgroups,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “As in our study of individuals in the U.K., South Asians in the U.S. suffer from diabetes at much higher rates – 23% versus 12% – and this often occurs even in the absence of obesity.”

Dr. Khera noted that the 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease identify South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing factor, calling this a “stopgap measure.” More work is needed, he said, in the research arena and in the clinic.
 

Zero South Asians included in studies used to develop risk estimator

“I think the first step is to simply acknowledge that the risk estimators we use in clinical practice have important limitations when it comes to diverse patient populations,” Dr. Khera said in an interview. “We saw this in our study, where – despite a more than doubling of risk – the predicted risk based on the equations used in primary care showed no difference. This risk estimator was developed based on legacy cohort studies, in [which] zero South Asians were included. Despite important differences across race/ethnicity, the current state-of-the-art in the U.S. is to use one equation for Black individuals and another for all other ethnicities.”

Experts suggest steps for reducing heart disease risk

While risk modeling remains suboptimal, Dr. Khera suggested that clinicians can take immediate steps to reduce the risk of heart disease among individuals with South Asian ancestry.

“Despite all of the uncertainty – we still don’t have a complete understanding of why the risk is so high – there are still several things primary care doctors can do for their patients,” Dr. Khera said.

Foremost, he recommended lifestyle and dietary counseling.

“Dietary counseling is particularly effective if put in the context of cultural norms,” Dr. Khera said. “Many South Asians consider fruit juices or white rice to be healthy, when they lead to rapid spikes in blood sugar.”

Dr. Khera also advised earlier heart disease screening, such as coronary calcium scanning “sometime between age 40-50 years,” noting that positive test results may motivate patients to start or adhere to medications, such as cholesterol-lowering therapies. If necessary, clinicians can also refer to heart centers for South Asian patients, which are becoming increasingly common.

According to Cheryl A.M. Anderson, PhD, chair of the AHA’s Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, the current study suggests that heart disease management strategies for South Asian patients may be lacking.

“We have had a tradition of preventing or trying to treat heart disease in a fashion that doesn’t yet account for the increased risk that might be prevalent in those of South Asian ancestry,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

She suggested that improving associated risk-analysis tools could be beneficial, although the tools themselves, in the context of race or ethnicity, may present their own risks.

“We want to be mindful of potential adverse implications from having everything linked to one’s ancestry, which I think this tool doesn’t do,” Dr. Anderson said, referring to the AHA/ACC Pooled Cohort Equations. “But in sort of the bigger picture of things, we always want to expand and refine our toolkit.”

According to Rajesh Dash, MD, PhD, associate professor, cardiologist, and director of the South Asian Translational Heart Initiative (SSATHI) Prevention Clinic and CardioClick Telemedicine Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) HealthCare, the science supports more active risk mitigation strategies for South Asian patients, and the AHA and the ACC “are the two entities that need to lead the way.”

“Certainly the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology should be taking a more active leadership role in this,” Dr. Dash said in an interview.

In 2018, the AHA issued a scientific statement about the elevated risk of ASCVD among South Asian individuals, “but it did not rise to the level of specific recommendations, and did not necessarily go as far as to incorporate new screening parameters for that population,” Dr. Dash said. He also noted that the most recent AHA/ACC guideline identifies South Asian ancestry as a risk-enhancing feature, a statement similarly lacking in actionable value.

“That does not definitively lead someone like a primary care physician to a decision to start a statin, or to be more aggressive with a diagnostic workup, like a stress test, for instance, for a patient who they otherwise would not have done one in had they not been South Asian,” Dr. Dash said.

The steps taken by the AHA and the ACC are “a healthy step forward,” he noted, “but not nearly the degree of attention or vigilance that is required, as well as the level of action that is required to change the narrative for the population.”

At the SSATHI Prevention Clinic, Dr. Dash and colleagues aren’t waiting for the narrative to change, and are already taking a more aggressive approach.

The clinic has an average patient age of 41 years, “easily 15 years younger than the average age in most cardiology clinics,” Dr. Dash said, based on the fact that approximately two-thirds of heart attacks in South Asian individuals occur under the age of 55. “We have to look earlier.”

The SSATHI Prevention Clinic screens for both traditional and emerging risk factors, and Dr. Dash suggested that primary care doctors should do the same.

“If you have a South Asian patient as a primary care physician, you should be aggressively looking for risk factors, traditional ones to start, like elevated cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, or – and I would argue strongly – prediabetes or insulin resistance.”

Dr. Dash also recommended looking into family history, and considering screening for inflammatory biomarkers, the latter of which are commonly elevated at an earlier age among South Asian individuals, and may have a relatively greater prognostic impact.

To encourage broader implementation of this kind of approach, Dr. Dash called for more large-scale studies. Ideally, these would be randomized clinical trials, but, realistically, real-world datasets may be the answer.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard; the National Human Genome Research Institute; and others. The investigators disclosed relationships with IBM Research, Sanofi, Amgen, and others. Dr. Dash disclosed relationships with HealthPals and AstraZeneca. Dr. Anderson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals, despite narrow endorsement in a 10-7 vote in favor of approval by one of its advisory panels in May.

According to the company, the FDA did not cite any clinical deficiencies related to the efficacy and safety data packages submitted as part of the biologics license application for teplizumab.

Rather, the sticking point appears to be a study in healthy volunteers that had been raised as an issue with Provention Bio in April.

That study was designed to compare the planned commercial product with the product originally manufactured for clinical trials, but the former was not pharmacologically comparable to the latter, the FDA said in its complete response letter, issued on July 2.

The company expects, later this quarter, to obtain data from a substudy in patients receiving 12 days of therapy in the ongoing PROTECT trial of newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, which it hopes will help alleviate the FDA’s concerns.

“Upon review of the results from this substudy, the company will determine whether to submit these data to the FDA for its review ... to support pharmacokinetic comparability or otherwise justify why pharmacokinetic comparability is not necessary,” it said in its statement.

The FDA’s complete response letter had also mentioned additional issues related to product quality that Provention believes it has or will be able to address in the short term.

Teplizumab delays type 1 diabetes onset by years

Phase 2 data showing that a 14-day teplizumab infusion delayed the onset of type 1 diabetes by 2 years in high-risk relatives of people with the condition were called “game-changing” when presented at the American Diabetes Association 2019 Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These were the data considered by the FDA advisory panel in May.

In response to the FDA decision, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF said: “It is unfortunate that the FDA has not approved teplizumab at this time and instead has requested additional information from the sponsor. We look forward to Provention Bio addressing the issues outlined in the Complete Response Letter and working with the FDA to bring this option to market safely.”

Teplizumab is one of several potential disease-modifying therapies being studied for type 1 diabetes administered either soon after diagnosis or to asymptomatic individuals with high-risk autoantibodies.

“Disease-modifying therapies such as teplizumab will help address the unmet needs of people with type 1 diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. In the meantime, our organization will continue to support the research of other disease-modifying therapies that put us on the critical pathway to preventing and ultimately curing type 1 diabetes,” JDRF said in a statement.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals, despite narrow endorsement in a 10-7 vote in favor of approval by one of its advisory panels in May.

According to the company, the FDA did not cite any clinical deficiencies related to the efficacy and safety data packages submitted as part of the biologics license application for teplizumab.

Rather, the sticking point appears to be a study in healthy volunteers that had been raised as an issue with Provention Bio in April.

That study was designed to compare the planned commercial product with the product originally manufactured for clinical trials, but the former was not pharmacologically comparable to the latter, the FDA said in its complete response letter, issued on July 2.

The company expects, later this quarter, to obtain data from a substudy in patients receiving 12 days of therapy in the ongoing PROTECT trial of newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, which it hopes will help alleviate the FDA’s concerns.

“Upon review of the results from this substudy, the company will determine whether to submit these data to the FDA for its review ... to support pharmacokinetic comparability or otherwise justify why pharmacokinetic comparability is not necessary,” it said in its statement.

The FDA’s complete response letter had also mentioned additional issues related to product quality that Provention believes it has or will be able to address in the short term.

Teplizumab delays type 1 diabetes onset by years

Phase 2 data showing that a 14-day teplizumab infusion delayed the onset of type 1 diabetes by 2 years in high-risk relatives of people with the condition were called “game-changing” when presented at the American Diabetes Association 2019 Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These were the data considered by the FDA advisory panel in May.

In response to the FDA decision, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF said: “It is unfortunate that the FDA has not approved teplizumab at this time and instead has requested additional information from the sponsor. We look forward to Provention Bio addressing the issues outlined in the Complete Response Letter and working with the FDA to bring this option to market safely.”

Teplizumab is one of several potential disease-modifying therapies being studied for type 1 diabetes administered either soon after diagnosis or to asymptomatic individuals with high-risk autoantibodies.

“Disease-modifying therapies such as teplizumab will help address the unmet needs of people with type 1 diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. In the meantime, our organization will continue to support the research of other disease-modifying therapies that put us on the critical pathway to preventing and ultimately curing type 1 diabetes,” JDRF said in a statement.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to approve the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals, despite narrow endorsement in a 10-7 vote in favor of approval by one of its advisory panels in May.

According to the company, the FDA did not cite any clinical deficiencies related to the efficacy and safety data packages submitted as part of the biologics license application for teplizumab.

Rather, the sticking point appears to be a study in healthy volunteers that had been raised as an issue with Provention Bio in April.

That study was designed to compare the planned commercial product with the product originally manufactured for clinical trials, but the former was not pharmacologically comparable to the latter, the FDA said in its complete response letter, issued on July 2.

The company expects, later this quarter, to obtain data from a substudy in patients receiving 12 days of therapy in the ongoing PROTECT trial of newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, which it hopes will help alleviate the FDA’s concerns.

“Upon review of the results from this substudy, the company will determine whether to submit these data to the FDA for its review ... to support pharmacokinetic comparability or otherwise justify why pharmacokinetic comparability is not necessary,” it said in its statement.

The FDA’s complete response letter had also mentioned additional issues related to product quality that Provention believes it has or will be able to address in the short term.

Teplizumab delays type 1 diabetes onset by years

Phase 2 data showing that a 14-day teplizumab infusion delayed the onset of type 1 diabetes by 2 years in high-risk relatives of people with the condition were called “game-changing” when presented at the American Diabetes Association 2019 Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These were the data considered by the FDA advisory panel in May.

In response to the FDA decision, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF said: “It is unfortunate that the FDA has not approved teplizumab at this time and instead has requested additional information from the sponsor. We look forward to Provention Bio addressing the issues outlined in the Complete Response Letter and working with the FDA to bring this option to market safely.”

Teplizumab is one of several potential disease-modifying therapies being studied for type 1 diabetes administered either soon after diagnosis or to asymptomatic individuals with high-risk autoantibodies.

“Disease-modifying therapies such as teplizumab will help address the unmet needs of people with type 1 diabetes and those at risk for developing the disease. In the meantime, our organization will continue to support the research of other disease-modifying therapies that put us on the critical pathway to preventing and ultimately curing type 1 diabetes,” JDRF said in a statement.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who have even mild sleep apnea should be treated for their sleep-disordered breathing given what is known about associated risks for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes, Carolyn M. D’Ambrosio, MS, MD, FCCP, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“This is the current standard of care,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Although guidelines on this issue are not hard and fast, I’d say that knowing what we know about the risk of adverse [maternal] outcomes, we should all try to treat these problems as soon as they’re identified” and then repeat polysomnography or home sleep testing 3-6 months post partum to “be sure the sleep-disordered breathing has resolved.”

Estimates of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) prevalence range from approximately 9% in the first trimester to 20% in the third trimester. Yet recognizing the significance of OSA in pregnant women and identifying women for testing remains a major challenge. “Most women won’t [report sleep problems] because it’s pretty much common folklore that you don’t sleep well when you’re pregnant,” said Dr. D’Ambrosio, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and current past-chair of the Women’s Lung Health Network for CHEST.

Many obstetricians and obstetrics providers, meanwhile, do not adequately screen. Typical screening tools like the Epworth Sleepiness Scale have low sensitivity and specificity during pregnancy, which means that inquiries about sleepiness, snoring, and disruptions in sleep are important, as is attention to potential risks for OSA posed by obesity, chronic hypertension, and neck circumference.

Only about a quarter of women in the United States snore during pregnancy, she noted. Snoring prevalence does increase as pregnancy progresses, reaching up to almost 50% in during the third trimester in some studies.

A four-variable screening tool reported almost 10 years ago for pregnant women is reliable for gauging risk, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. The model considers self-reported frequent snoring (more than three times/week), chronic hypertension, advanced maternal age, and a pregestational body mass index of at least 30 kg/m². “If these [factors] are present, the patient is at significant risk for OSA and should be strongly considered for testing,” she said.

Home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) is validated for pregnant women but “it can underestimate,” she said. “If you get a negative result and [have clinical suspicion], then don’t stop there.”

And considering that the prevalence of OSA – at all levels of severity – increases as pregnancy progresses, it’s important to continue talking about sleep with patients who have frequent snoring, for instance, but negative sleep test results early in pregnancy. “They could develop [OSA] as time goes on,” she said.
 

Associated risk factors

Independent associations between sleep-disordered breathing and adverse maternal outcomes were demonstrated in a prospective cohort study published several years ago of 3,705 women who underwent HSAT in early and mid-pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratios for preeclampsia when sleep-disordered breathing (an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥5) was present early in pregnancy and in mid-pregnancy were 1.94 and 1.95, respectively.

For hypertensive disorders of pregnancy more broadly, the ORs were 1.46 and 1.73, and for gestational diabetes, the ORs were 3.47 and 2.79.

“Faced with the question about why it’s important to diagnosis and treat OSA [during pregnancy] since the pregnancy will be over in a few months, I go to this study,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. “Waiting until the end of pregnancy is not safe. There are increased risks of very serious conditions if sleep apnea is there and it’s not treated.”

Another study demonstrating a link between OSA and maternal outcomes looked over 1.5 million deliveries in the United States and found a significantly higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (OR, 2.08), gestational hypertension (OR, 1.77), preeclampsia (OR, 2.07), and eclampsia (OR, 2.70) in pregnant women with OSA than without, after adjusting for maternal obesity. Associations remained significant after adjusting for a more comprehensive list of covariates.

Multiple potential casual pathways are at play, Dr. D’Ambrosio said. Short sleep duration decreases leptin and increases ghrelin levels, for instance, and sleep fragmentation activates the HPA axis and increases cortisol. Intermittent hypoxemia affects sympathetic activity, and intrathoracic pressure swings cause increased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation.

The resulting endothelial dysfunction, glucose dysfunction, and dyslipidemia can drive the adverse maternal outcomes documented in these studies, she said, noting that the adverse outcomes can have long-term cardiovascular consequences.

Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is well tolerated in pregnancy, and given pregnancy’s continual weight change, auto-titrating CPAP may be the best option, she said.

There is “some limited data that treatment improves maternal outcomes, and we’re still working on trying to get better data and more solid recommendations,” Dr. D’Ambrosio said. There currently are no guidelines covering the diagnosis and management of OSA during pregnancy.

“We’ve come a long way ... but we still have more to do,” she said. “We have a long way to go to getting [OSA in pregnant women] well recognized, with screening techniques and diagnosis.”

Asked after the meeting about Dr. D’Ambrosio’s messages, Anita Rajagopal, MD, said that OSA screening during pregnancy needs to be improved through more collaboration “with our ob.gyn. and primary care colleagues.”

Too often, she said, “the signs and symptoms of OSA in pregnancy are written off as ‘just harmless snoring’ while in fact the patient has treatable sleep disordered breathing with potential adverse effects.” Dr. Rajagopal is department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep-Wake Disorders Center, both in Indianapolis.

Dr. D’Ambrosio reported that she has no potential conflicts of interest related to the material she presented, and Dr. Rajagopal stated she has no potential conflicts of interest.

A church-based diabetes self-management support intervention that incorporated parish nurses and peer leaders is feasible and may help improve diabetes-related outcomes in participants.

Sustained reductions in hemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress were seen in the Praise Diabetes Project, a 33-month study that piloted several different approaches to parish nurse and peer leader support at 21 urban churches in Michigan and Ohio, said Gretchen Piatt, MPH, PhD, associate professor in the department of learning health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Of the participants who achieved glycemic control following diabetes self-management education, a really large proportion – upward of 77% of participants across all the groups– achieved sustained glycemic control at 33 months,” Dr. Piatt said.

Findings from this study has helped diabetes educators better understand how to design effective support approaches that may have a long-term impact on glycemic control and diabetes distress, Dr. Piatt said.

The Praise Diabetes Project represents a “very smart strategy” of leveraging institutions that already exist in the African American community that are trusted and provide emotional support, said Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA.

“This is about behavior change, really, at its crux,” Ms. Brown said in an interview. “To get there, you’ve got to have trust, and you have to have an emotional connection. If you don’t get either one of those things, then you really are not going to do anything in terms of changing behavior.”
 

Long-term solutions needed

Many studies show that diabetes self-management education can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes, and reduce health care utilization and cost, at least in the short term, Dr. Piatt said. However, it’s less clear how those improvements can be sustained over longer periods of time.

“This then presents a critical need to develop and evaluate diabetes self-management support models that are ongoing, patient driven, and embedded within existing community infrastructures,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.

Working with churches is one approach to working within existing community infrastructures: “Churches are embedded in the community, they have the personnel oftentimes to facilitate these types of health programs, and most importantly, they have the established relationships with the community that brings about sustained changes,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.
 

Addressing diabetes education needs in urban, low-resource communities

The Praise Diabetes Project was a randomized, 33-month clinical trial conducted in 21 predominantly Black churches in Detroit; Flint, Mich.; and Toledo, Ohio, which are all urban, low-resource communities where diabetes is a significant public health problem, according to Dr. Piatt.

The study was designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of three different approaches to diabetes self-management support at improving A1c and levels of diabetes distress, according to the investigators.

The churches were randomized to one of the support arms, including parish nurse plus peer leader support, parish nurse support by itself, or peer leader support by itself.

A total of 47 individuals were trained, including 31 peer leaders and 16 parish nurses.

All three interventions included an initial 6-month period of “enhanced usual care” during which biweekly newsletters that were distributed, according to Dr. Piatt. That was followed by 12 months of diabetes self-management support, and an additional 12 months of ongoing support facilitated by parish nurses and peer leaders on their own, without input from the research team or health care providers.

Participants in the program had to be at least 21 years old and under the care of a physician for their diabetes, according to Dr. Piatt. The parish nurses had to be registered nurses in Michigan or Ohio. Peer leaders had to be at least 21 years old, had at least an eighth-grade education, and had to commit to a 30-hour training program.

Peer leaders also had to be individuals living with diabetes: “Prior studies have found that, when peer leaders are actively working on their own self-management goals, they tend to be much more successful in helping others,” Dr. Piatt explained.

In addition to facilitating diabetes self-management education, the parish nurses and peer leaders in these interventions were responsible for recruitment, church announcements, room reservations, follow-up calls to participants, according to Dr. Piatt. Parish nurses also provided clinical content knowledge and supervised the peer leaders in the combined model.
 

Sustained reductions in A1c and diabetes distress

These diabetes self-management support approaches led to significant changes over time in A1c and diabetes distress, the primary outcomes of the study, Dr. Piatt said.

The peer leader support approach resulted in a statistically significant decline in A1c, from a mean of 8.0% at baseline to 7.7% at 33 months (P = .04), while nonsignificant declines were observed in the parish nurse and combined parish nurse–peer leader approach, according to the researcher.

Reductions in A1c persisted despite the COVID-19 pandemic, which began roughly 21 months into the study, she said.

Glycemic control remained steady over the course of the study, as illustrated by similar proportions of participants with A1c below 7% from baseline to 33 months, she added.

Sustained glycemic control was seen in all three groups, according to Dr. Piatt. For example, 42.7% of individuals in the parish nurse and peer leader support group achieved glycemic control following the intervention, and 88.5% of them sustained it at 33 months.

“I think this is one of the longest diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support interventions that’s out there right now, so we were so happy to see that sustained by glycemic control that far into the future,” she said.

Diabetes distress levels decreased steadily over time in all three groups, with declines that were statistically significant from baseline to 33 months in the parish nurse–only and peer leader–only groups, the investigator said.

The proportion of participants reporting moderate levels of diabetes distress dropped over time, especially in the peer leader support group, where there was a 50% reduction, she added.

Despite these findings, the study had limitations, according to Dr. Piatt, including some “burnout” that impacted participants, parish nurses, and peer leaders, especially after the pandemic started.

In addition, this type of intervention may have limited impact in the community at large: “We probably didn’t reach people who did not have good connection to the church,” Dr. Piatt said.

Dr. Piatt reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

A church-based diabetes self-management support intervention that incorporated parish nurses and peer leaders is feasible and may help improve diabetes-related outcomes in participants.

Sustained reductions in hemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress were seen in the Praise Diabetes Project, a 33-month study that piloted several different approaches to parish nurse and peer leader support at 21 urban churches in Michigan and Ohio, said Gretchen Piatt, MPH, PhD, associate professor in the department of learning health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Of the participants who achieved glycemic control following diabetes self-management education, a really large proportion – upward of 77% of participants across all the groups– achieved sustained glycemic control at 33 months,” Dr. Piatt said.

Findings from this study has helped diabetes educators better understand how to design effective support approaches that may have a long-term impact on glycemic control and diabetes distress, Dr. Piatt said.

The Praise Diabetes Project represents a “very smart strategy” of leveraging institutions that already exist in the African American community that are trusted and provide emotional support, said Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA.

“This is about behavior change, really, at its crux,” Ms. Brown said in an interview. “To get there, you’ve got to have trust, and you have to have an emotional connection. If you don’t get either one of those things, then you really are not going to do anything in terms of changing behavior.”
 

Long-term solutions needed

Many studies show that diabetes self-management education can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes, and reduce health care utilization and cost, at least in the short term, Dr. Piatt said. However, it’s less clear how those improvements can be sustained over longer periods of time.

“This then presents a critical need to develop and evaluate diabetes self-management support models that are ongoing, patient driven, and embedded within existing community infrastructures,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.

Working with churches is one approach to working within existing community infrastructures: “Churches are embedded in the community, they have the personnel oftentimes to facilitate these types of health programs, and most importantly, they have the established relationships with the community that brings about sustained changes,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.
 

Addressing diabetes education needs in urban, low-resource communities

The Praise Diabetes Project was a randomized, 33-month clinical trial conducted in 21 predominantly Black churches in Detroit; Flint, Mich.; and Toledo, Ohio, which are all urban, low-resource communities where diabetes is a significant public health problem, according to Dr. Piatt.

The study was designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of three different approaches to diabetes self-management support at improving A1c and levels of diabetes distress, according to the investigators.

The churches were randomized to one of the support arms, including parish nurse plus peer leader support, parish nurse support by itself, or peer leader support by itself.

A total of 47 individuals were trained, including 31 peer leaders and 16 parish nurses.

All three interventions included an initial 6-month period of “enhanced usual care” during which biweekly newsletters that were distributed, according to Dr. Piatt. That was followed by 12 months of diabetes self-management support, and an additional 12 months of ongoing support facilitated by parish nurses and peer leaders on their own, without input from the research team or health care providers.

Participants in the program had to be at least 21 years old and under the care of a physician for their diabetes, according to Dr. Piatt. The parish nurses had to be registered nurses in Michigan or Ohio. Peer leaders had to be at least 21 years old, had at least an eighth-grade education, and had to commit to a 30-hour training program.

Peer leaders also had to be individuals living with diabetes: “Prior studies have found that, when peer leaders are actively working on their own self-management goals, they tend to be much more successful in helping others,” Dr. Piatt explained.

In addition to facilitating diabetes self-management education, the parish nurses and peer leaders in these interventions were responsible for recruitment, church announcements, room reservations, follow-up calls to participants, according to Dr. Piatt. Parish nurses also provided clinical content knowledge and supervised the peer leaders in the combined model.
 

Sustained reductions in A1c and diabetes distress

These diabetes self-management support approaches led to significant changes over time in A1c and diabetes distress, the primary outcomes of the study, Dr. Piatt said.

The peer leader support approach resulted in a statistically significant decline in A1c, from a mean of 8.0% at baseline to 7.7% at 33 months (P = .04), while nonsignificant declines were observed in the parish nurse and combined parish nurse–peer leader approach, according to the researcher.

Reductions in A1c persisted despite the COVID-19 pandemic, which began roughly 21 months into the study, she said.

Glycemic control remained steady over the course of the study, as illustrated by similar proportions of participants with A1c below 7% from baseline to 33 months, she added.

Sustained glycemic control was seen in all three groups, according to Dr. Piatt. For example, 42.7% of individuals in the parish nurse and peer leader support group achieved glycemic control following the intervention, and 88.5% of them sustained it at 33 months.

“I think this is one of the longest diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support interventions that’s out there right now, so we were so happy to see that sustained by glycemic control that far into the future,” she said.

Diabetes distress levels decreased steadily over time in all three groups, with declines that were statistically significant from baseline to 33 months in the parish nurse–only and peer leader–only groups, the investigator said.

The proportion of participants reporting moderate levels of diabetes distress dropped over time, especially in the peer leader support group, where there was a 50% reduction, she added.

Despite these findings, the study had limitations, according to Dr. Piatt, including some “burnout” that impacted participants, parish nurses, and peer leaders, especially after the pandemic started.

In addition, this type of intervention may have limited impact in the community at large: “We probably didn’t reach people who did not have good connection to the church,” Dr. Piatt said.

Dr. Piatt reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

A church-based diabetes self-management support intervention that incorporated parish nurses and peer leaders is feasible and may help improve diabetes-related outcomes in participants.

Sustained reductions in hemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress were seen in the Praise Diabetes Project, a 33-month study that piloted several different approaches to parish nurse and peer leader support at 21 urban churches in Michigan and Ohio, said Gretchen Piatt, MPH, PhD, associate professor in the department of learning health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Of the participants who achieved glycemic control following diabetes self-management education, a really large proportion – upward of 77% of participants across all the groups– achieved sustained glycemic control at 33 months,” Dr. Piatt said.

Findings from this study has helped diabetes educators better understand how to design effective support approaches that may have a long-term impact on glycemic control and diabetes distress, Dr. Piatt said.

The Praise Diabetes Project represents a “very smart strategy” of leveraging institutions that already exist in the African American community that are trusted and provide emotional support, said Tracey D. Brown, CEO of the ADA.

“This is about behavior change, really, at its crux,” Ms. Brown said in an interview. “To get there, you’ve got to have trust, and you have to have an emotional connection. If you don’t get either one of those things, then you really are not going to do anything in terms of changing behavior.”
 

Long-term solutions needed

Many studies show that diabetes self-management education can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes, and reduce health care utilization and cost, at least in the short term, Dr. Piatt said. However, it’s less clear how those improvements can be sustained over longer periods of time.

“This then presents a critical need to develop and evaluate diabetes self-management support models that are ongoing, patient driven, and embedded within existing community infrastructures,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.

Working with churches is one approach to working within existing community infrastructures: “Churches are embedded in the community, they have the personnel oftentimes to facilitate these types of health programs, and most importantly, they have the established relationships with the community that brings about sustained changes,” Dr. Piatt said in her presentation.
 

Addressing diabetes education needs in urban, low-resource communities

The Praise Diabetes Project was a randomized, 33-month clinical trial conducted in 21 predominantly Black churches in Detroit; Flint, Mich.; and Toledo, Ohio, which are all urban, low-resource communities where diabetes is a significant public health problem, according to Dr. Piatt.

The study was designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of three different approaches to diabetes self-management support at improving A1c and levels of diabetes distress, according to the investigators.

The churches were randomized to one of the support arms, including parish nurse plus peer leader support, parish nurse support by itself, or peer leader support by itself.

A total of 47 individuals were trained, including 31 peer leaders and 16 parish nurses.

All three interventions included an initial 6-month period of “enhanced usual care” during which biweekly newsletters that were distributed, according to Dr. Piatt. That was followed by 12 months of diabetes self-management support, and an additional 12 months of ongoing support facilitated by parish nurses and peer leaders on their own, without input from the research team or health care providers.

Participants in the program had to be at least 21 years old and under the care of a physician for their diabetes, according to Dr. Piatt. The parish nurses had to be registered nurses in Michigan or Ohio. Peer leaders had to be at least 21 years old, had at least an eighth-grade education, and had to commit to a 30-hour training program.

Peer leaders also had to be individuals living with diabetes: “Prior studies have found that, when peer leaders are actively working on their own self-management goals, they tend to be much more successful in helping others,” Dr. Piatt explained.

In addition to facilitating diabetes self-management education, the parish nurses and peer leaders in these interventions were responsible for recruitment, church announcements, room reservations, follow-up calls to participants, according to Dr. Piatt. Parish nurses also provided clinical content knowledge and supervised the peer leaders in the combined model.
 

Sustained reductions in A1c and diabetes distress

These diabetes self-management support approaches led to significant changes over time in A1c and diabetes distress, the primary outcomes of the study, Dr. Piatt said.

The peer leader support approach resulted in a statistically significant decline in A1c, from a mean of 8.0% at baseline to 7.7% at 33 months (P = .04), while nonsignificant declines were observed in the parish nurse and combined parish nurse–peer leader approach, according to the researcher.

Reductions in A1c persisted despite the COVID-19 pandemic, which began roughly 21 months into the study, she said.

Glycemic control remained steady over the course of the study, as illustrated by similar proportions of participants with A1c below 7% from baseline to 33 months, she added.

Sustained glycemic control was seen in all three groups, according to Dr. Piatt. For example, 42.7% of individuals in the parish nurse and peer leader support group achieved glycemic control following the intervention, and 88.5% of them sustained it at 33 months.

“I think this is one of the longest diabetes self-management education and diabetes self-management support interventions that’s out there right now, so we were so happy to see that sustained by glycemic control that far into the future,” she said.

Diabetes distress levels decreased steadily over time in all three groups, with declines that were statistically significant from baseline to 33 months in the parish nurse–only and peer leader–only groups, the investigator said.

The proportion of participants reporting moderate levels of diabetes distress dropped over time, especially in the peer leader support group, where there was a 50% reduction, she added.

Despite these findings, the study had limitations, according to Dr. Piatt, including some “burnout” that impacted participants, parish nurses, and peer leaders, especially after the pandemic started.

In addition, this type of intervention may have limited impact in the community at large: “We probably didn’t reach people who did not have good connection to the church,” Dr. Piatt said.

Dr. Piatt reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

The use of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor injections has been linked to an increased risk of mortality in patients with diabetic retinopathy in a new study, sounding a note of caution regarding the cardiovascular safety of these agents in clinical practice, an investigator said.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

There was no increased risk of MI or stroke risk associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections versus steroid injections or laser photocoagulation in the study, which was based on analysis of health records for more than 60,000 treated individuals.

However, a “signal” was observed for increased risk of death from any cause among patients receiving anti-VEGF injections, and especially so in those with a history of cardiovascular events, said investigator Miin Roh, MD, PhD, a retina surgeon and instructor in ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This study suggests that we would have to be very careful in giving anti-VEGF injections in patients for diabetic retinopathy, especially when you’re giving it for a long-term period,” Dr. Roh said in a virtual presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.


 

Report of a mortality signal

The study by Dr. Roh and colleagues included patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, identified in health claims databases who started intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, intravitreal steroid injections, or laser photocoagulation between 2009 and 2017.

Their analysis included 30,741 patients who received anti-VEGF injections and 30,741 matched controls who received laser or steroid treatment.

There were no differences in the primary composite outcome of MI or stroke, with 674 events in the anti-VEGF group and 708 events in the laser or steroid group over a 365-day treatment period, Dr. Roh reported.

By contrast, the investigator said she saw a signal for increased risk of all-cause mortality in analyses of secondary outcomes.

Over a 180-day treatment period, there was a “slight numerical increase” in all-cause mortality, with 144 deaths in the anti-VEGF group and 115 in the control group. That translated into a hazard ratio of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.60).

Looking at a 365-day treatment period, there was an increase in all-cause mortality in the anti-VEGF group that this time was statistically significant, she said, with 311 and 236 events, respectively (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57).

The mortality signal was especially strong among individuals who had a prior history of a cardiovascular event, according to Dr. Roh.

In patients with cardiovascular disease history, there were 219 deaths from any cause in the anti-VEGF group and 153 in the laser or steroid group (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 3.10-11.22) over a 365-day period, the investigator reported. By comparison, in patients with no cardiovascular disease history, there were 95 and 96 deaths (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.33).
 

More research needed

Although these findings are “hypothesis generating,” exploration of other datasets would be warranted to measure mortality risk among patients receiving treatment for diabetic neuropathy, said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA.

“It’s something that we need now to study more rigorously,” Dr. Gabbay said in an interview. “It doesn’t prove that there’s a connection, but it tells us that this is worth studying.”

The current study is not a randomized comparison, which means that the people chosen to receive anti-VEGF therapy, as opposed to steroid injections or laser treatment, may differ in other ways that are associated with mortality, he said.

“It’s always good to monitor these patients,” Dr. Gabbay added. “The good news is that these individuals typically are coming in, oftentimes monthly for repeated injections, and so there’s an opportunity to monitor any changes.”

Dr. Roh reported that she is a coinvestigator in a Boehringer Ingelheim–initiated study that is not directly related to the topic of this research.

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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