Diabetes

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.

The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.

As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.

“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.

“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
 

Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved

The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.

The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.

Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.

On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m²; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.

Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.

Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.

Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
 

Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist

At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):

• A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
• A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.  
• A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.

Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m²; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.

Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.

This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”

Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).  

Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

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

In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.

The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.

As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.

“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.

“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
 

Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved

The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.

The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.

Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.

On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m²; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.

Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.

Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.

Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
 

Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist

At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):

• A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
• A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.  
• A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.

Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m²; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.

Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.

This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”

Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).  

Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

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

In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial of adults with type 2 diabetes and obesity, investigational drug bimagrumab (BYM338, Novartis) – a monoclonal antibody that blocks activin type II receptors and stimulates skeletal muscle growth – led to big reductions in total body fat mass and A1c and significant increases in lean mass compared with placebo.

The efficacy and safety findings “suggest that blockade of the activin receptor with bimagrumab could provide a novel pharmacologic approach for managing patients with type 2 diabetes with excess adiposity,” Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and colleagues reported in their study, published online Jan. 13 in JAMA Network Open. 

Preliminary findings from the study of 75 patients treated for 48 weeks – in which neither group ate less despite intensive nutrition advice – were presented at Obesity Week in 2019.

As reported then, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, noted that the 6.5% weight loss in the bimagrumab group was similar to that seen with antiobesity medications that suppress appetite.

“What it suggests,” he said in an interview, “is that there may be a completely new mechanism at play here,” because patients receiving bimagrumab weren’t eating less but were losing the same amount of weight as reported for weight-loss drugs that work by decreasing appetite.

“Is this going to be the kind of complementary drug with a different mechanism that’s going to augment the effects of other drugs?” wondered Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism & Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who has previously served as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

Asked about future plans for bimagrumab, a Novartis spokesperson said in an interview, “We are currently reviewing the program strategy and considering next steps.”
 

Four FDA-approved weight-loss drugs now approved

The Food and Drug Administration approval for lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR, Eisai) for weight loss was rescinded on Feb. 13, 2020, when a postmarketing trial revealed an increased occurrence of cancer, leaving four drugs approved for weight loss in the United States, plus several drugs in development, Dr. Heymsfield and colleagues wrote.

The current phase 2 trial was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of bimagrumab – which had originally been studied to see if it would increase lean muscle mass in people with sarcopenia – on total body fat mass and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity.

Researchers enrolled 75 adults at eight sites in the United States and one in Wales, United Kingdom, from 2017 to 2019.

On average, patients were 60 years old with an A1c of 7.8% and a body mass index of 32.9 kg/m²; they weighed 93.6 kg and had a fat mass of 35 kg.

Patients received an intravenous infusion of bimagrumab (10 mg/kg up to 1,200 mg in 5% dextrose solution) or placebo (5% dextrose solution) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. They met with a registered dietitian at each monthly study visit and had a virtual check-in between visits.

Participants were advised to follow a diet that would cut 500 calories a day and encouraged to follow the American Diabetes Association walking program.

Body fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

There were more women in the bimagrumab group than in the placebo group (62% vs. 32%), but baseline BMI, total body fat mass, and A1c were similar in both groups.
 

Same caloric intake, less fat tissue, more muscle, smaller waist

At 48 weeks in the bimagrumab vs. placebo group, there was on average (all P < .001):

• A loss of 20.5% vs. 0.5% (−7.5 vs. −0.2 kg) of total body fat mass.
• A loss of 6.5% vs. 0.8% (−5.9 vs. −0.8 kg) of body weight.  
• A gain of 3.6% vs. a loss of 0.8% (1.7 vs. −0.4 kg) of lean mass.

Similarly, the relatively large between-group differences in total body fat mass and body weight at 48 weeks with bimagrumab were accompanied by favorable differences in BMI (−2.19 vs. −0.28 kg/m²; P < .001) and waist circumference (−9.0 vs. 0.5 cm; P < .001), the investigators pointed out.

Moreover, the reduction of abdominal visceral adipose tissue and waist circumference with bimagrumab “was nearly twice that observed in a recently published study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with an intensive lifestyle program and the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide,” they noted.

This highlights “the importance of moving away from body weight as a primary efficacy marker of drugs to more metabolically relevant endpoints.”

Also, A1c decreased by 0.76% in the bimagrumab group and increased by 0.04% in the placebo group (P = .005).

Serious adverse events occurred in three patients (8%) in the bimagrumab group (elevated lipase, epigastric pain, pancreatitis, pneumonia) and three patients (8%) in the placebo group (cellulitis, acute coronary syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, worsening gastroparesis, thermal burn).  

Adverse events were reported by 31 of 37 patients in the bimagrumab group, most often mild diarrhea (41%) and muscle spasms (41%), and 31 of 38 patients in the placebo group, most often headache (13%) and upper respiratory tract infection (13%).

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Heymsfield has reported receiving personal fees from Tanita and Medifast outside the submitted work. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Kaplan has reported previously serving as a scientific consultant to Novartis.

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

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a widely accepted theory used to help predict human lifestyle-related behaviors.

Design. Pragmatic, cluster, randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. This study took place at the East Elgin Family Health Team, a primary care clinic in Aylmer, Ontario, Canada. Recruitment occurred between April 2017 and September 2018, with staggered intervention cohorts occurring from May 2017 to September 2019. Participants enrolled in a weight management program at the clinic were invited to participate in the study if they met the following inclusion criteria: body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m², >18 years of age, English-speaking, willing to undergo genetic testing, having access to a computer with internet at least 1 day per week, and not seeing another health care provider for weight loss advice outside of the study. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy and lactation. All participants provided written informed consent.

Interventions. At baseline, weight management program cohorts (average cohort size was 14 participants) were randomized (1:1) to receive either the standard population-based intervention (Group Lifestyle Balance, or GLB) or a modified GLB intervention, which included the provision of lifestyle genomics (LGx) information and advice (GLB+LGx). Both interventions aimed to assist participants with weight management and healthy lifestyle change, with particular focus on nutrition and physical activity (PA). Interventions were 12 months long, consisting of 23 group-based sessions and 3 one-on-one sessions with a registered dietitian after 3, 6, and 12 months (all sessions were face-to-face). To improve intervention adherence, participants were given reminder calls for their one-on-one appointments and for the start of their program. A sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome indicating that a total of 74 participants were needed (n = 37 per group) for this trial. By September 2019, this sample size was exceeded with 10 randomized groups (n = 140).

The 5 randomized standard GLB groups followed the established GLB program curriculum comprising population-based information and advice while focusing on following a calorie-controlled, moderate-fat (25% of calories) nutrition plan with at least 150 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity PA. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting outlining population-based targets, including acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges for protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

The 5 randomized modified GLB+LGx groups followed a modified GLB program curriculum in which participants were given genetic-based information and advice, which differed from the advice given to the standard GLB group, while focusing on following a calorie-controlled nutrition plan. The nutrition and PA targets were personalized based on their individual genetic variation. For example, participants with the AA variant of FTO (rs9939609) were advised to engage in at least 30 to 60 minutes of PA daily 6 days per week, with muscle-strengthening activities at least 2 days per week, rather than receiving the standard population-based advice to aim for 150 minutes weekly of PA with at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening activity. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting, which outlined genetic-based information and advice related to protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

Measures and analysis. Change in the TPB components (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) were measured via a TPB questionnaire at 5 time points: baseline (2-week run-in period), immediately after the first group session (where participants received a summary report of either population-based or genetic-based recommendations depending on group assignment), and after 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were measured on a Likert scale from 1 through 7. Self-reported measures of actual behavioral control (including annual household income, perceptions about events arising in one’s day-to-day life that suddenly take up one’s free time, perceptions about the frequency of feeling ill or tired, and highest achieved level of education) were collected via survey questions and assessed on a Likert scale of 1 through 7. Stage of change was also measured, based on the Transtheoretical Model, using a Likert scale of 1 through 6.

Linear mixed models were used to conduct within- and between-group analyses using SPSS version 26.0, while controlling for measures of actual behavioral control. All analyses were intention-to-treat by originally assigned groups, with mean value imputation conducted for missing data. A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used. For all statistical analyses, the level of significance was set at P < 0.05 and trending towards significance at P = 0.05–0.06.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle-income, Caucasian females. Baseline attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA for weight management were generally positive, and participants perceived that undergoing genetic testing would assist with weight management. Participants had overall neutral subjective norms related to friends and family consuming a healthy diet and engaging in PA, but perceived that their friends, family, and health care team (HCT) believed it was important for them to achieve their nutrition and PA recommendations. Participants overall also perceived that their HCT believed genetic testing could assist with weight management. Baseline measures of perceived behavioral control were overall neutral, with baseline stage of change between “motivation” and “action” (short-term; <3 months).

In within-group analyses, significant improvements (P < 0.05) in attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA recommendations for weight management, subjective norms related to both friends and family consuming a healthy diet, and perceived behavioral control in changing PA/dietary intake and managing weight tended to be short-term in the GLB group and long-term for the GLB+LGx group. In all cases of between-group differences for changes in TPB components, the GLB group exhibited reductions in scores, whereas the GLB+LGx group exhibited increases or improvements. Between-group differences (short-term and long-term) in several measures of subjective norms were observed. For example, after 3 months, significant between-group differences were observed in changes in perception that friends believed LGx would help with weight management (P = 0.024). After 12 months, between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed in changes in perception that family members believed genetic testing would help with weight management (P = 0.05). Significant between-group differences and differences trending towards significance were also observed at 12 months for changes in perception that family believed it was important for the participant to achieve the PA recommendations (P = 0.049) and nutrition recommendations (P = 0.05). Between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed at 3 months in attitudes towards the effectiveness of LGx for weight management (P = 0.06). There were no significant between-group differences observed in changes in perceived behavioral control.

Conclusion. Results from this study support the hypothesis that the TPB can help provide a theoretical explanation for why genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice can lead to improvements in lifestyle behavior change.

Commentary

Because health behaviors are critical in areas such as prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, it is important to describe and understand what drives these behaviors.¹ Theories are important tools in this effort as they aim to explain and predict health behavior and are used in the design and evaluation of interventions.¹ The TPB is one of the most widely accepted behavior change theories and posits that attitudes, subjective norms (or social pressures and behaviors), and perceived behavioral control are significant predictors of an individual’s intention to engage in behaviors.² TPB has been highlighted in the literature as a validated theory for predicting nutrition and PA intentions and resulting behaviors.^3,4

Motivating lifestyle behavior change in clinical practice can be challenging, but some studies have demonstrated how providing genetic information and advice (or lifestyle genomics) can help motivate changes in nutrition and PA among patients.^5-7 Because this has yet to be explained using the TPB, this study is an important contribution to the literature as it aimed to determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the TPB. Briefly, results from within-group analyses in this study demonstrated that the provision of genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice (via the GLB+LGx intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change, more so over the long-term, while population-based advice (via the standard GLB intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change over the short-term (eg, attitudes towards dietary fat intake, perceptions that friends and family consume a healthy diet, and perceptions about the impact of genetic-based advice for weight management). In addition, between-group differences in subjective norms observed at 12 months suggested that social pressures and norms may be influencing long-term changes in lifestyle habits.

While key strengths of this study include its pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial design, 12-month intervention duration, and intent-to-treat analyses, there are some study limitations, which are acknowledged by the authors. Generalizability is limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population (ie, middle-aged, middle-income, Caucasian females enrolled in a lifestyle change weight management program). Thus, replication of the study is needed in more diverse study populations and with health-related outcomes beyond weight management. In addition, as the authors indicate, future research should ensure the inclusion of theory-based questionnaires in genetic-based intervention studies assessing lifestyle behavior change to elucidate theory-based mechanisms of change.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Population-based research has consistently indicated that nutrition interventions typically impact short-term dietary changes. Confronting the challenge of long-term adherence to nutrition and PA recommendations requires an understanding of factors impacting long-term motivation and behavior change. With increased attention on and research into genetically tailored lifestyle advice (or lifestyle genomics), it is important for clinical practitioners to be familiar with the evidence supporting these approaches. In addition, this research highlights the need to consider individual factors (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) that may predict successful change in lifestyle habits when providing nutrition and PA recommendations, whether population-based or genetically tailored.

—Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a widely accepted theory used to help predict human lifestyle-related behaviors.

Design. Pragmatic, cluster, randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. This study took place at the East Elgin Family Health Team, a primary care clinic in Aylmer, Ontario, Canada. Recruitment occurred between April 2017 and September 2018, with staggered intervention cohorts occurring from May 2017 to September 2019. Participants enrolled in a weight management program at the clinic were invited to participate in the study if they met the following inclusion criteria: body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m², >18 years of age, English-speaking, willing to undergo genetic testing, having access to a computer with internet at least 1 day per week, and not seeing another health care provider for weight loss advice outside of the study. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy and lactation. All participants provided written informed consent.

Interventions. At baseline, weight management program cohorts (average cohort size was 14 participants) were randomized (1:1) to receive either the standard population-based intervention (Group Lifestyle Balance, or GLB) or a modified GLB intervention, which included the provision of lifestyle genomics (LGx) information and advice (GLB+LGx). Both interventions aimed to assist participants with weight management and healthy lifestyle change, with particular focus on nutrition and physical activity (PA). Interventions were 12 months long, consisting of 23 group-based sessions and 3 one-on-one sessions with a registered dietitian after 3, 6, and 12 months (all sessions were face-to-face). To improve intervention adherence, participants were given reminder calls for their one-on-one appointments and for the start of their program. A sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome indicating that a total of 74 participants were needed (n = 37 per group) for this trial. By September 2019, this sample size was exceeded with 10 randomized groups (n = 140).

The 5 randomized standard GLB groups followed the established GLB program curriculum comprising population-based information and advice while focusing on following a calorie-controlled, moderate-fat (25% of calories) nutrition plan with at least 150 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity PA. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting outlining population-based targets, including acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges for protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

The 5 randomized modified GLB+LGx groups followed a modified GLB program curriculum in which participants were given genetic-based information and advice, which differed from the advice given to the standard GLB group, while focusing on following a calorie-controlled nutrition plan. The nutrition and PA targets were personalized based on their individual genetic variation. For example, participants with the AA variant of FTO (rs9939609) were advised to engage in at least 30 to 60 minutes of PA daily 6 days per week, with muscle-strengthening activities at least 2 days per week, rather than receiving the standard population-based advice to aim for 150 minutes weekly of PA with at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening activity. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting, which outlined genetic-based information and advice related to protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

Measures and analysis. Change in the TPB components (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) were measured via a TPB questionnaire at 5 time points: baseline (2-week run-in period), immediately after the first group session (where participants received a summary report of either population-based or genetic-based recommendations depending on group assignment), and after 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were measured on a Likert scale from 1 through 7. Self-reported measures of actual behavioral control (including annual household income, perceptions about events arising in one’s day-to-day life that suddenly take up one’s free time, perceptions about the frequency of feeling ill or tired, and highest achieved level of education) were collected via survey questions and assessed on a Likert scale of 1 through 7. Stage of change was also measured, based on the Transtheoretical Model, using a Likert scale of 1 through 6.

Linear mixed models were used to conduct within- and between-group analyses using SPSS version 26.0, while controlling for measures of actual behavioral control. All analyses were intention-to-treat by originally assigned groups, with mean value imputation conducted for missing data. A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used. For all statistical analyses, the level of significance was set at P < 0.05 and trending towards significance at P = 0.05–0.06.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle-income, Caucasian females. Baseline attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA for weight management were generally positive, and participants perceived that undergoing genetic testing would assist with weight management. Participants had overall neutral subjective norms related to friends and family consuming a healthy diet and engaging in PA, but perceived that their friends, family, and health care team (HCT) believed it was important for them to achieve their nutrition and PA recommendations. Participants overall also perceived that their HCT believed genetic testing could assist with weight management. Baseline measures of perceived behavioral control were overall neutral, with baseline stage of change between “motivation” and “action” (short-term; <3 months).

In within-group analyses, significant improvements (P < 0.05) in attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA recommendations for weight management, subjective norms related to both friends and family consuming a healthy diet, and perceived behavioral control in changing PA/dietary intake and managing weight tended to be short-term in the GLB group and long-term for the GLB+LGx group. In all cases of between-group differences for changes in TPB components, the GLB group exhibited reductions in scores, whereas the GLB+LGx group exhibited increases or improvements. Between-group differences (short-term and long-term) in several measures of subjective norms were observed. For example, after 3 months, significant between-group differences were observed in changes in perception that friends believed LGx would help with weight management (P = 0.024). After 12 months, between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed in changes in perception that family members believed genetic testing would help with weight management (P = 0.05). Significant between-group differences and differences trending towards significance were also observed at 12 months for changes in perception that family believed it was important for the participant to achieve the PA recommendations (P = 0.049) and nutrition recommendations (P = 0.05). Between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed at 3 months in attitudes towards the effectiveness of LGx for weight management (P = 0.06). There were no significant between-group differences observed in changes in perceived behavioral control.

Conclusion. Results from this study support the hypothesis that the TPB can help provide a theoretical explanation for why genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice can lead to improvements in lifestyle behavior change.

Commentary

Because health behaviors are critical in areas such as prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, it is important to describe and understand what drives these behaviors.¹ Theories are important tools in this effort as they aim to explain and predict health behavior and are used in the design and evaluation of interventions.¹ The TPB is one of the most widely accepted behavior change theories and posits that attitudes, subjective norms (or social pressures and behaviors), and perceived behavioral control are significant predictors of an individual’s intention to engage in behaviors.² TPB has been highlighted in the literature as a validated theory for predicting nutrition and PA intentions and resulting behaviors.^3,4

Motivating lifestyle behavior change in clinical practice can be challenging, but some studies have demonstrated how providing genetic information and advice (or lifestyle genomics) can help motivate changes in nutrition and PA among patients.^5-7 Because this has yet to be explained using the TPB, this study is an important contribution to the literature as it aimed to determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the TPB. Briefly, results from within-group analyses in this study demonstrated that the provision of genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice (via the GLB+LGx intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change, more so over the long-term, while population-based advice (via the standard GLB intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change over the short-term (eg, attitudes towards dietary fat intake, perceptions that friends and family consume a healthy diet, and perceptions about the impact of genetic-based advice for weight management). In addition, between-group differences in subjective norms observed at 12 months suggested that social pressures and norms may be influencing long-term changes in lifestyle habits.

While key strengths of this study include its pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial design, 12-month intervention duration, and intent-to-treat analyses, there are some study limitations, which are acknowledged by the authors. Generalizability is limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population (ie, middle-aged, middle-income, Caucasian females enrolled in a lifestyle change weight management program). Thus, replication of the study is needed in more diverse study populations and with health-related outcomes beyond weight management. In addition, as the authors indicate, future research should ensure the inclusion of theory-based questionnaires in genetic-based intervention studies assessing lifestyle behavior change to elucidate theory-based mechanisms of change.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Population-based research has consistently indicated that nutrition interventions typically impact short-term dietary changes. Confronting the challenge of long-term adherence to nutrition and PA recommendations requires an understanding of factors impacting long-term motivation and behavior change. With increased attention on and research into genetically tailored lifestyle advice (or lifestyle genomics), it is important for clinical practitioners to be familiar with the evidence supporting these approaches. In addition, this research highlights the need to consider individual factors (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) that may predict successful change in lifestyle habits when providing nutrition and PA recommendations, whether population-based or genetically tailored.

—Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a widely accepted theory used to help predict human lifestyle-related behaviors.

Design. Pragmatic, cluster, randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. This study took place at the East Elgin Family Health Team, a primary care clinic in Aylmer, Ontario, Canada. Recruitment occurred between April 2017 and September 2018, with staggered intervention cohorts occurring from May 2017 to September 2019. Participants enrolled in a weight management program at the clinic were invited to participate in the study if they met the following inclusion criteria: body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m², >18 years of age, English-speaking, willing to undergo genetic testing, having access to a computer with internet at least 1 day per week, and not seeing another health care provider for weight loss advice outside of the study. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy and lactation. All participants provided written informed consent.

Interventions. At baseline, weight management program cohorts (average cohort size was 14 participants) were randomized (1:1) to receive either the standard population-based intervention (Group Lifestyle Balance, or GLB) or a modified GLB intervention, which included the provision of lifestyle genomics (LGx) information and advice (GLB+LGx). Both interventions aimed to assist participants with weight management and healthy lifestyle change, with particular focus on nutrition and physical activity (PA). Interventions were 12 months long, consisting of 23 group-based sessions and 3 one-on-one sessions with a registered dietitian after 3, 6, and 12 months (all sessions were face-to-face). To improve intervention adherence, participants were given reminder calls for their one-on-one appointments and for the start of their program. A sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome indicating that a total of 74 participants were needed (n = 37 per group) for this trial. By September 2019, this sample size was exceeded with 10 randomized groups (n = 140).

The 5 randomized standard GLB groups followed the established GLB program curriculum comprising population-based information and advice while focusing on following a calorie-controlled, moderate-fat (25% of calories) nutrition plan with at least 150 minutes of weekly moderate-intensity PA. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting outlining population-based targets, including acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges for protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

The 5 randomized modified GLB+LGx groups followed a modified GLB program curriculum in which participants were given genetic-based information and advice, which differed from the advice given to the standard GLB group, while focusing on following a calorie-controlled nutrition plan. The nutrition and PA targets were personalized based on their individual genetic variation. For example, participants with the AA variant of FTO (rs9939609) were advised to engage in at least 30 to 60 minutes of PA daily 6 days per week, with muscle-strengthening activities at least 2 days per week, rather than receiving the standard population-based advice to aim for 150 minutes weekly of PA with at least 2 days per week of muscle-strengthening activity. Participants were also provided with a 1-page summary report of their nutrition and PA guidelines at the first group meeting, which outlined genetic-based information and advice related to protein, total fat, saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, sodium, calories, snacking, and PA.

Measures and analysis. Change in the TPB components (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) were measured via a TPB questionnaire at 5 time points: baseline (2-week run-in period), immediately after the first group session (where participants received a summary report of either population-based or genetic-based recommendations depending on group assignment), and after 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were measured on a Likert scale from 1 through 7. Self-reported measures of actual behavioral control (including annual household income, perceptions about events arising in one’s day-to-day life that suddenly take up one’s free time, perceptions about the frequency of feeling ill or tired, and highest achieved level of education) were collected via survey questions and assessed on a Likert scale of 1 through 7. Stage of change was also measured, based on the Transtheoretical Model, using a Likert scale of 1 through 6.

Linear mixed models were used to conduct within- and between-group analyses using SPSS version 26.0, while controlling for measures of actual behavioral control. All analyses were intention-to-treat by originally assigned groups, with mean value imputation conducted for missing data. A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used. For all statistical analyses, the level of significance was set at P < 0.05 and trending towards significance at P = 0.05–0.06.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle-income, Caucasian females. Baseline attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA for weight management were generally positive, and participants perceived that undergoing genetic testing would assist with weight management. Participants had overall neutral subjective norms related to friends and family consuming a healthy diet and engaging in PA, but perceived that their friends, family, and health care team (HCT) believed it was important for them to achieve their nutrition and PA recommendations. Participants overall also perceived that their HCT believed genetic testing could assist with weight management. Baseline measures of perceived behavioral control were overall neutral, with baseline stage of change between “motivation” and “action” (short-term; <3 months).

In within-group analyses, significant improvements (P < 0.05) in attitudes towards the effectiveness of nutrition and PA recommendations for weight management, subjective norms related to both friends and family consuming a healthy diet, and perceived behavioral control in changing PA/dietary intake and managing weight tended to be short-term in the GLB group and long-term for the GLB+LGx group. In all cases of between-group differences for changes in TPB components, the GLB group exhibited reductions in scores, whereas the GLB+LGx group exhibited increases or improvements. Between-group differences (short-term and long-term) in several measures of subjective norms were observed. For example, after 3 months, significant between-group differences were observed in changes in perception that friends believed LGx would help with weight management (P = 0.024). After 12 months, between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed in changes in perception that family members believed genetic testing would help with weight management (P = 0.05). Significant between-group differences and differences trending towards significance were also observed at 12 months for changes in perception that family believed it was important for the participant to achieve the PA recommendations (P = 0.049) and nutrition recommendations (P = 0.05). Between-group differences trending towards significance were also observed at 3 months in attitudes towards the effectiveness of LGx for weight management (P = 0.06). There were no significant between-group differences observed in changes in perceived behavioral control.

Conclusion. Results from this study support the hypothesis that the TPB can help provide a theoretical explanation for why genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice can lead to improvements in lifestyle behavior change.

Commentary

Because health behaviors are critical in areas such as prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, it is important to describe and understand what drives these behaviors.¹ Theories are important tools in this effort as they aim to explain and predict health behavior and are used in the design and evaluation of interventions.¹ The TPB is one of the most widely accepted behavior change theories and posits that attitudes, subjective norms (or social pressures and behaviors), and perceived behavioral control are significant predictors of an individual’s intention to engage in behaviors.² TPB has been highlighted in the literature as a validated theory for predicting nutrition and PA intentions and resulting behaviors.^3,4

Motivating lifestyle behavior change in clinical practice can be challenging, but some studies have demonstrated how providing genetic information and advice (or lifestyle genomics) can help motivate changes in nutrition and PA among patients.^5-7 Because this has yet to be explained using the TPB, this study is an important contribution to the literature as it aimed to determine the impact of providing genetically tailored and population-based lifestyle advice for weight management on key constructs of the TPB. Briefly, results from within-group analyses in this study demonstrated that the provision of genetically tailored lifestyle information and advice (via the GLB+LGx intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change, more so over the long-term, while population-based advice (via the standard GLB intervention) tended to impact antecedents of behavior change over the short-term (eg, attitudes towards dietary fat intake, perceptions that friends and family consume a healthy diet, and perceptions about the impact of genetic-based advice for weight management). In addition, between-group differences in subjective norms observed at 12 months suggested that social pressures and norms may be influencing long-term changes in lifestyle habits.

While key strengths of this study include its pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial design, 12-month intervention duration, and intent-to-treat analyses, there are some study limitations, which are acknowledged by the authors. Generalizability is limited to the demographic characteristics of the study population (ie, middle-aged, middle-income, Caucasian females enrolled in a lifestyle change weight management program). Thus, replication of the study is needed in more diverse study populations and with health-related outcomes beyond weight management. In addition, as the authors indicate, future research should ensure the inclusion of theory-based questionnaires in genetic-based intervention studies assessing lifestyle behavior change to elucidate theory-based mechanisms of change.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Population-based research has consistently indicated that nutrition interventions typically impact short-term dietary changes. Confronting the challenge of long-term adherence to nutrition and PA recommendations requires an understanding of factors impacting long-term motivation and behavior change. With increased attention on and research into genetically tailored lifestyle advice (or lifestyle genomics), it is important for clinical practitioners to be familiar with the evidence supporting these approaches. In addition, this research highlights the need to consider individual factors (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) that may predict successful change in lifestyle habits when providing nutrition and PA recommendations, whether population-based or genetically tailored.

—Katrina F. Mateo, PhD, MPH

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Mounting evidence of strikingly high prevalence rates of fatty liver disease, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis among patients with type 2 diabetes has led to calls for heightened awareness and screening to identify these patients and target treatments to reduce their risk for irreversible liver damage.

Courtesy Dr. Christos S. Mantzoros

Among these calls is a pending statement from the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Gastroenterology Association, and other groups on what the growing appreciation of highly prevalent liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) means for assessing and managing patients. Publication of the statement is expected by spring 2021, said Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, chief of endocrinology for the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and a representative from the Endocrine Society to the statement-writing panel.

This upcoming “Call to Action” from these groups argues for a “need to collaborate across disciplines, and work together on establishing clinical guidelines, and creating new diagnostics and therapeutics,” said Dr. Mantzoros in an interview.

“Over time, it is becoming clearer that management of NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease]/NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] requires a multidisciplinary panel of doctors ranging from primary care practitioners, to endocrinologists, and hepatologists. Given that the nature of the disease crosses scientific discipline boundaries, and that the number of patients is so large (it is estimated that about one in four U.S. adults have NAFLD), not all patients can be treated at the limited number of hepatology centers.

“However, not all stakeholders have fully realized this fact, and no effort had been undertaken so far by any professional society to develop a coordinated approach and clinical care pathway for NAFLD/NASH. The ‘Call to Action’ meeting can be considered as a starting point for such an important effort,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the human nutrition unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.
 

Dramatic prevalence rates in patients with T2D

Results from two independent epidemiology reports, published in December 2020, documented steatosis (the fatty liver of NAFLD) in 70%-74% of unselected U.S. patients with T2D, advanced liver fibrosis accompanying this disease in 6%-15%, and previously unrecognized cirrhosis in 3%-8%.

One of these reports analyzed 825 patients with T2D included in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey of 2017-2018 run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All these patients, selected to be representative of the overall U.S. adult population with T2D, underwent transient elastography to identify steatosis and fibrosis, the first U.S. National Health Survey to run this type of population-based survey. The results showed an overall steatosis prevalence of 74% with grade 3 steatosis in 58%, advanced liver fibrosis in 15%, and cirrhosis in 8%, reported the team of Italian researchers who analyzed the data .

The second study focused on a single-center series of 561 patients with T2D who also underwent screening by transient elastography during 2018-2020 and had no history of NAFLD or other liver disease, or alcohol abuse. The imaging results showed a NAFLD prevalence of 70%, with 54% of the entire group diagnosed with severe steatosis, severe fibrosis in 6%, and cirrhosis in 3%. Among the 54% of patients with severe steatosis, 30% also had severe liver fibrosis. About 70% of the 561 patients assessed came from either the family medicine or general internal medicine clinics of the University of Florida, Gainesville, with the remaining 30% enrolled from the center’s endocrinology/diabetes outpatient clinic.

Neither report documented a NASH prevalence, which cannot receive definitive diagnosis by imaging alone. “This is the first study of its kind in the U.S. to establish the magnitude of [liver] disease burden in random patients with T2D seeking regular outpatient care,” wrote the University of Florida research team, led by Kenneth Cusi, MD, professor and chief of the university’s division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism. Their finding that patients with T2D and previously unknown to have NAFLD had a 15% prevalence of moderate or advanced liver fibrosis “should trigger a call to action by all clinicians taking care of patients with T2D. Patient and physician awareness of the hepatic and extrahepatic complications of NASH, and reversing current diagnosis and treatment inertia will be the only way to avert the looming epidemic of cirrhosis in patients with diabetes.”

“Endocrinologists don’t ‘see’ NAFLD and NASH” in their patients with T2D “ because they don’t think about it,” Dr. Mantzoros declared.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

“Why is NASH underdiagnosed and undertreated? Because many physicians aren’t aware of it,” agreed Dr. Cusi during a talk in December 2020 at the 18th World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease (WCIRDC). “You never find what you don’t look for.”

“Endocrinologists should do the tests for NASH [in patients with T2D], but we’re all guilty of not doing it enough,” Tracey McLaughlin, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, commented during the WCIRDC.

These prevalence numbers demand that clinicians suspect liver disease “in any patient with diabetes, especially patients with obesity who are older and have components of metabolic syndrome,” said Dr. Mantzoros. “We need to screen, refer the most advanced cases, and treat the early- and mid-stage cases.”
 

How to find NASH

Both the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes call for routine screening of patients with T2D, starting with a check of liver enzymes, such as ALT, but no clear consensus exists for the specifics of screening beyond that. Dr. Mantzoros, Dr. Cusi, and other experts agree that the scheme for assessing liver disease in patients with T2D starts with regular monitoring of elevations in liver enzymes including ALT. Next is noninvasive ultrasound assessment of the extent of liver fibrosis inferred from the organ’s stiffness using transient elastography. Another frequently cited initial screening tool is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which incorporates a patient’s age, platelet count, and levels of ALT and a second liver enzyme, AST.

“There is more consensus about FIB-4 and then elastography, but some people use tests other than FIB-4. Unfortunately there is no perfect diagnostic test today. A top priority is to define the best diagnostic test,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is leading an effort to try to refine screening using artificial intelligence.

“FIB-4 is simple, easy, and well validated,” commented Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC last December. “FIB-4 and elastography should get you pretty close” to identifying patients with T2D and significant liver disease.

But in a recent editorial, Dr. Cusi agreed on the need for “more reliable tests for the diagnosis of NASH and advanced fibrosis in patients with T2D. Significant work is being done in the field to validate novel and more sophisticated fibrosis biomarkers. Future studies will help us enter a new era of precision medicine where biomarkers will identify and target therapy to those with more active disease at risk for cirrhosis,” he wrote.

“The ultimate goal is to diagnose fibrosis at an early stage to prevent people from developing cirrhosis,” Dr. Cusi said in a recent written statement. “We’re trying to identify these problems before they’re unfixable. Once someone has cirrhosis, there isn’t a whole lot you can do.”
 

Pioglitazone remains the best-documented treatment

Perhaps some of the inertia in diagnosing NAFLD, NASH, and liver fibrosis in patients with T2D is dissatisfaction with current treatment options, although several proven options exist, notably weight loss and diet, and thiazolidinedione (TZD) pioglitazone. But weight loss and diet pose issues for patient compliance and durability of the intervention, and many clinicians consider pioglitazone flawed by its potential adverse effects.

“When we don’t have an established treatment for something, we tend to not measure it or go after it. That’s been true of liver disease” in patients with T2D, said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., during the WCIRDC.

Treatment with pioglitazone has resolved NASH in about a third of patients compared with placebo, prevented fibrosis progression, and cut cardiovascular disease events, noted Dr. Cusi during the WCIRDC.

“Pioglitazone is used in only 8% of patients with T2D, or less, but we need to use it more often because of its proven efficacy in patients with T2D and NASH” said Dr. Mantzoros. “The problem is that pioglitazone has side effects, including weight gain and fluid retention, that makes it less attractive unless one thinks about the diagnosis of NASH.”

Others highlight that the adverse effects of pioglitazone have been either misunderstood, or can be effectively minimized with careful dosing.

“The data with the TZDs are much stronger than the data from anything else. TZDs have gotten a bad name because they also work in the kidney and enhance fluid reabsorption. We use modest dosages of pioglitazone, 15 mg or 30 mg a day, to avoid excess fluid retention,” Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, said during the WCIRDC. “The best drug for NASH is pioglitazone. No other drug beats it” based on current data, Dr. DeFronzo asserted.

Other strategies include the potential to pair pioglitazone with other interventions that can blunt a weight-gain effect. One intriguing combination would combine pioglitazone with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, a drug class that can produce significant weight loss. Results from a phase 2 study showed promise for semaglutide (Rybelsus) in treating patients with NASH.
 

Getting the name right

Another factor that may be keeping NAFLD and NASH from achieving a higher profile for patients with T2D are those names, which focus on what the diseases are not – nonalcoholic – rather than what they are.

A series of recent publications in both the endocrinology and hepatology literature have called for renaming these disorders either “metabolic (dysfunction)–associated fatty liver disease (MALFD)”, or “dysmetabolism-associated fatty liver disease (DALFD)”.

“The names NAFLD and NASH indicate absence of alcohol as a cause, but the disease is also characterized by the absence of other causes, such as autoimmune disorders or hepatitis. The names were coined when we did not know much about these diseases. We now know that it is dysmetabolism that causes these conditions, and so we need to adopt a new, more accurate name,” explained Dr. Mantzoros, who has published support for a name change.

While many agree, some have raised concerns as to whether a name change now is premature. A group of hepatologists recently published a rebuttal to an immediate name change , saying that, “although we are in agreement that metabolic fatty liver disease may more accurately and positively reflect the relevant risk factors better than the age-old term nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the term still leaves a great deal of ambiguity. A name change will be appropriate when informed by a new understanding of the molecular basis of the disease entity, insights that fundamentally change risk stratification, or other important aspects of the disease. We may be on the cusp of this, but we are not there yet.”

Dr. Mantzoros agreed, but for somewhat different reasons.

“We need to be careful and deliberate, because there is a significant body of knowledge and a lot of data from clinical trials collected using the old definitions. We need to find an appropriate time frame for a [name] transition. We need to find a nice and robust way to productively bridge the old to the new,” he said. “We also need new diagnostic criteria, and new therapies. A new name and definition will facilitate progress.”

Dr. Mantzoros been a shareholder of and consultant to Coherus and Pangea, he has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Genfit, Intercept, Novo Nordisk, P.E.S., and Regeneron, and has received travel support from the Metabolic Institute of America and the California Walnut Commission. Dr. Cusi has been a consultant to and has received research funding from numerous drug companies. Dr. McLaughlin is a consultant to January AI. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to numerous drug companies. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.^1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.^1,4

This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.

Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease

CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.^5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 1⁷) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.

Taking its toll in diabetes

As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.^8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.

Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.⁶ As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.^5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.¹²

Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.^12,13

Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”

Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.¹²

Continue to: How great is the risk?

How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.¹² As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.¹⁴

As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.

For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.^12,15

Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities

A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).

Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.⁶

Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.^16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹² Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.⁶

Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol

In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.

Screen for potential comorbidities of DKD: For example, the risk of cardiovascular disease is significantly elevated in even moderately increased albuminuria.

To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.²¹ Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.⁶

Levels of the UACR are established as follows²²:

• Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
• Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
• Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
• Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.

The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.¹² Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.

Clinical features

DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.¹² Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.

Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...

The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.¹² In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.⁶

As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.⁶

Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation²³ is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² is considered abnormal.^3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.

A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).⁷ Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.^3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.

Management

Nutritional factors

Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.^24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.³ Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.⁶

Continue to: Low sodium intake

Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.³

Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.⁶

Blood pressure

Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.

The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.²⁷

The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.²⁸

Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and a UACR > 300 mg/g.^29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.

Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.^29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.⁶ There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB³³; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.³³

There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.⁵

ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.

Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.²⁰ A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².

Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers

Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.²⁰

Confirmation of suspected DKD requires an elevated albumin:creatinine ratio in at least 2 of 3 urine specimens over a 3- to 6-month period.

Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.^34,35

Glycemic levels

Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.^10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.⁴⁰ However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.^40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.^6,42

Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD

In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.

Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas

First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.²⁰

Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.⁴³ Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m² with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m².⁴³ 

Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney

Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.^44,45 

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.^46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.^46,48

Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD

Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.^49,50

Tight glycemic control in T1D and T2D can delay the onset, and slow the progression, of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.

If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.⁴⁹

Complications of CKD

Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the ­hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.⁵¹

Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 2⁵² outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.

When to refer to a nephrologist

Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.⁶ Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.

Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...

Nutritional control is important in DKD: A lowsodium diet can slow progression of DKD, and a low-potassium diet can prevent hyperkalemia in end-stage renal disease.

Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.⁵³ Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.⁶

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.^1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.^1,4

This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.

Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease

CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.^5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 1⁷) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.

Taking its toll in diabetes

As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.^8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.

Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.⁶ As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.^5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.¹²

Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.^12,13

Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”

Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.¹²

Continue to: How great is the risk?

How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.¹² As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.¹⁴

As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.

For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.^12,15

Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities

A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).

Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.⁶

Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.^16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹² Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.⁶

Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol

In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.

Screen for potential comorbidities of DKD: For example, the risk of cardiovascular disease is significantly elevated in even moderately increased albuminuria.

To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.²¹ Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.⁶

Levels of the UACR are established as follows²²:

• Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
• Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
• Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
• Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.

The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.¹² Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.

Clinical features

DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.¹² Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.

Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...

The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.¹² In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.⁶

As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.⁶

Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation²³ is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² is considered abnormal.^3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.

A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).⁷ Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.^3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.

Management

Nutritional factors

Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.^24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.³ Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.⁶

Continue to: Low sodium intake

Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.³

Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.⁶

Blood pressure

Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.

The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.²⁷

The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.²⁸

Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and a UACR > 300 mg/g.^29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.

Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.^29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.⁶ There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB³³; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.³³

There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.⁵

ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.

Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.²⁰ A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².

Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers

Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.²⁰

Confirmation of suspected DKD requires an elevated albumin:creatinine ratio in at least 2 of 3 urine specimens over a 3- to 6-month period.

Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.^34,35

Glycemic levels

Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.^10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.⁴⁰ However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.^40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.^6,42

Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD

In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.

Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas

First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.²⁰

Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.⁴³ Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m² with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m².⁴³ 

Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney

Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.^44,45 

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.^46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.^46,48

Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD

Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.^49,50

Tight glycemic control in T1D and T2D can delay the onset, and slow the progression, of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.

If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.⁴⁹

Complications of CKD

Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the ­hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.⁵¹

Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 2⁵² outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.

When to refer to a nephrologist

Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.⁶ Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.

Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...

Nutritional control is important in DKD: A lowsodium diet can slow progression of DKD, and a low-potassium diet can prevent hyperkalemia in end-stage renal disease.

Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.⁵³ Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.⁶

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant comorbidity of diabetes mellitus. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) of the National Kidney Foundation defines CKD as the presence of kidney damage or decreased kidney function for ≥ 3 months. CKD caused by diabetes is called diabetic kidney disease (DKD), which is 1 of 3 principal microvascular complications of diabetes. DKD can progress to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), requiring kidney replacement therapy, and is the leading cause of CKD and ESRD in the United States.^1-3 Studies have also shown that, particularly in patients with diabetes, CKD considerably increases the risk of cardiovascular events, which often occur prior to ESRD.^1,4

This article provides the latest recommendations for evaluating and managing DKD to help you prevent or slow its progression.

Defining and categorizing diabetic kidney disease

CKD is defined as persistently elevated excretion of urinary albumin (albuminuria) and decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or as the presence of signs of progressive kidney damage.^5,6 DKD, also known as diabetic nephropathy, is CKD attributed to long-term diabetes. A patient’s eGFR is the established basis for assignment to a stage (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, or 5) of CKD (TABLE 1⁷) and, along with the category of albuminuria (A1, A2, or A3), can indicate prognosis.

Taking its toll in diabetes

As many as 40% of patients with diabetes develop DKD.^8-10 Most studies of DKD have been conducted in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because the time of clinical onset is typically known.

Type 1 diabetes. DKD usually occurs 10 to 15 years, or later, after the onset of diabetes.⁶ As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.^5,11 After approximately 22.5 years without albuminuria, patients with T1D have approximately a 1% annual risk of DKD.¹²

Type 2 diabetes (T2D). DKD is often present at diagnosis, likely due to a delay in diagnosis and briefer clinical exposure, compared to T1D. Albuminuria has been reported in as many as 40% of patients with T2D approximately 10 years after onset of diabetes.^12,13

Multiple risk factors with no standout “predictor”

Genetic susceptibility, ethnicity, glycemic control, smoking, blood pressure (BP), and the eGFR have been identified as risk factors for renal involvement in diabetes; obesity, oral contraceptives, and age can also contribute. Although each risk factor increases the risk of DKD, no single factor is adequately predictive. Moderately increased albuminuria, the earliest sign of DKD, is associated with progressive nephropathy.¹²

Continue to: How great is the risk?

How great is the risk? From disease onset to proteinuria and from proteinuria to ESRD, the risk of DKD in T1D and T2D is similar. With appropriate treatment, albuminuria can regress, and the risk of ESRD can be < 20% at 10 years in T1D.¹² As in T1D, good glycemic control might result in regression of albuminuria in T2D.¹⁴

As many as 30% of people with T1D have albuminuria approximately 15 years after onset of diabetes; almost one-half of those develop DKD.

For unknown reasons, the degree of albuminuria can exist independent of the progression of DKD. Factors responsible for a progressive decline in eGFR in DKD without albuminuria are unknown.^12,15

Patient evaluation with an eye toward comorbidities

A comprehensive initial medical evaluation for DKD includes a review of microvascular complications; visits to specialists; lifestyle and behavior patterns (eg, diet, sleep, substance use, and social support); and medication adherence, adverse drug effects, and alternative medicines. Although DKD is often a clinical diagnosis, it can be ruled in by persistent albuminuria or decreased eGFR, or both, in established diabetes or diabetic retinopathy when other causes are unlikely (see “Recommended DKD screening protocol,” below).

Screening for mental health conditions and barriers to self-management is also key.⁶

Comorbidities, of course, can complicate disease management in patients with diabetes.^16-20 Providers and patients therefore need to be aware of potential diabetic comorbidities. For example, DKD and even moderately increased albuminuria significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).¹² Other possible comorbidities include (but are not limited to) nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fracture, hearing impairment, cancer (eg, liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon, rectum, breast, and bladder), pancreatitis, hypogonadism, obstructive sleep apnea, periodontal disease, anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.⁶

Continue to: Recommended DKD screening protocol

In all cases of T2D, in cases of T1D of ≥ 5 years’ duration, and in patients with diabetes and comorbid hypertension, perform annual screening for albuminuria, an elevated creatinine level, and a decline in eGFR.

Screen for potential comorbidities of DKD: For example, the risk of cardiovascular disease is significantly elevated in even moderately increased albuminuria.

To confirm the diagnosis of DKD, at least 2 of 3 urine specimens must demonstrate an elevated urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) over a 3- to 6-month period.²¹ Apart from renal damage, exercise within 24 hours before specimen collection, infection, fever, congestive heart failure, hyperglycemia, menstruation, and hypertension can elevate the UACR.⁶

Levels of the UACR are established as follows²²:

• Normal UACR is defined as < 30 milligrams of albumin per gram of creatinine (expressed as “mg/g”).
• Increased urinary albumin excretion is defined as ≥ 30 mg/g.
• Moderately increased albuminuria, a predictor of potential nephropathy, is the excretion of 30 to 300 mg/g.
• Severely increased albuminuria is excretion > 300 mg/g; it is often followed by a gradual decline in eGFR that, without treatment, eventually leads to ESRD.

The rate of decline in eGFR once albuminuria is severely increased is equivalent in T1D and T2D.¹² Without intervention, the time from severely increased albuminuria to ESRD in T1D and T2D averages approximately 6 or 7 years.

Clinical features

DKD is typically a clinical diagnosis seen in patients with longstanding diabetes, albuminuria, retinopathy, or a reduced eGFR in the absence of another primary cause of kidney damage. In patients with T1D and DKD, signs of retinopathy and neuropathy are almost always present at diagnosis, unless a diagnosis is made early in the course of diabetes.¹² Therefore, the presence of retinopathy suggests that diabetes is the likely cause of CKD.

Continue to: The presence of microvascular disease...

The presence of microvascular disease in patients with T2D and DKD is less predictable.¹² In T2D patients who do not have retinopathy, consider causes of CKD other than DKD. Features suggesting that the cause of CKD is an underlying condition other than diabetes are rapidly increasing albuminuria or decreasing eGFR; urinary sediment comprising red blood cells or white blood cells; and nephrotic syndrome.⁶

As the prevalence of diabetes increases, it has become more common to diagnose DKD by eGFR without albuminuria—underscoring the importance of routine monitoring of eGFR in patients with diabetes.⁶

Sources of expert guidance. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation²³ is preferred for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine: An eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² is considered abnormal.^3,12 At these rates, the prevalence of complications related to CKD rises and screening for complications becomes necessary.

A more comprehensive classification of the stages of CKD, incorporating albuminuria and progression of CKD, has been recommended by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).⁷ Because eGFR and excretion of albumin vary, abnormal test results need to be verified over time to stage the degree of CKD.^3,12 Kidney damage often manifests as albuminuria, but also as hematuria, other types of abnormal urinary sediment, radiographic abnormalities, and other abnormal presentations.

Management

Nutritional factors

Excessive protein intake has been shown to increase albuminuria, worsen renal function, and increase CVD mortality in DKD.^24-26 Therefore, daily dietary protein intake of 0.8 g/kg body weight is recommended for patients who are not on dialysis.³ Patients on dialysis might require higher protein intake to preserve muscle mass caused by protein-energy wasting, which is common in dialysis patients.⁶

Continue to: Low sodium intake

Low sodium intake in CKD patients has been shown to decrease BP and thus slow the progression of renal disease and lower the risk of CVD. The recommended dietary sodium intake in CKD patients is 1500-3000 mg/d.³

Low potassium intake. Hyperkalemia is a serious complication of CKD. A low-potassium diet is recommended in ESRD patients who have a potassium level > 5.5 mEq/L.⁶

Blood pressure

Preventing and treating hypertension is critical to slowing the progression of CKD and reducing cardiovascular risk. BP should be measured at every clinic visit. Aside from lifestyle changes, medication might be needed to reach target BP.

The American Diabetes Association recommends a BP goal of ≤ 140/90 mm Hg for hypertensive patients with diabetes, although they do state that a lower BP target (≤ 130/80 mm Hg) might be more appropriate for patients with DKD.²⁷

The American College of Cardiology recommends that hypertensive patients with CKD have a BP target of ≤ 130/80 mm Hg.²⁸

Continue to: ACE inhibitors and ARBs

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective benefits. These agents are recommended as first-line medications for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and a UACR > 300 mg/g.^29-31 Evidence also supports their use when the UACR is 30 to 299 mg/g.

Studies have shown that, in patients with DKD, ACE inhibitors and ARBs can slow the progression of renal disease.^29,30,32 There is no difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in their effectiveness for preventing progression of DKD.⁶ There is no added benefit in combining an ACE inhibitor and an ARB³³; notably, combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy can increase the risk of adverse events, such as hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury, especially in patients with DKD.³³

There is no evidence for starting an ACE inhibitor or ARB to prevent CKD in patients with diabetes who are not hypertensive.⁵

ACE inhibitors and ARBs should be used with caution in women of childbearing age, who should use a reliable form of contraception if taking one of these drugs.

Diuretics. Thiazide-type and loop diuretics might potentiate the positive effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. KDOQI guidelines recommend that, in patients who require a second agent to control BP, a diuretic should be considered in combination with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.²⁰ A loop diuretic is preferred if the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².

Continue to: Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers

Nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), such as diltiazem and verapamil, have been shown to be more effective then dihydrophyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine and nifedipine, in slowing the progression of renal disease because of their antiproteinuric effects. However, the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs are not as strong as those of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and these drugs do not appear to potentiate the effects of an ACE inhibitor or ARB when used in combination.²⁰

Confirmation of suspected DKD requires an elevated albumin:creatinine ratio in at least 2 of 3 urine specimens over a 3- to 6-month period.

Nondihydropyridine CCBs might be a reasonable alternative in patients who cannot tolerate an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in combination with an ACE inhibitor or ARB have been demonstrated to reduce albuminuria in short-term studies.^34,35

Glycemic levels

Studies conducted in patients with T1D, and others in patients with T2D, have shown that tight glycemic control can delay the onset and slow the progression of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.^10,36-39 The target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) should be < 7% to prevent or slow progression of DKD.⁴⁰ However, patients with DKD have an increased risk of hypoglycemic events and increased mortality with more intensive glycemic control.^40,41 Given those findings, some patients with DKD and significant comorbidities, ESRD, or limited life expectancy might need to have an A1C target set at 8%.^6,42

Adjustments to antidiabetes medications in DKD

In patients with stages 3 to 5 DKD, several common antidiabetic medications might need to be adjusted or discontinued because they decrease creatinine clearance.

Continue to: First-generation sulfonylureas

First-generation sulfonylureas should be avoided in DKD. Glipizide and gliclazide are preferred among second-generation sulfonylureas because they do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients, although patients taking these medications still require close monitoring of their blood glucose level.²⁰

Metformin. In 2016, recommendations changed for the use of metformin in patients with DKD: The eGFR, not the serum creatinine level, should guide treatment.⁴³ Metformin can be used safely in patients with (1) an eGFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and (2) an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m² with close monitoring. Metformin should not be initiated if the eGFR is < 45 mL/min/1.73 m².⁴³ 

Antidiabetes medications with direct effect on the kidney

Several antidiabetes medications have a direct effect on the kidney apart from their effect on the blood glucose level.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to reduce albuminuria and slow the decrease of eGFR independent of glycemic control. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have also been shown to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with DKD.^44,45 

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have been shown to delay and decrease the progression of DKD.^46-48 Also, similar to what is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists have demonstrable cardiovascular benefit in patients with DKD.^46,48

Continue to: Dyslipidemia and DKD

Because the risk of CVD is increased in patients with DKD, addressing other modifiable risk factors, including dyslipidemia, is recommended in these patients. Patients with diabetes and stages 1 to 4 DKD should be treated with a high-intensity statin or a combination of a statin and ezetimibe.^49,50

Tight glycemic control in T1D and T2D can delay the onset, and slow the progression, of albuminuria and a decline in the eGFR.

If a patient is taking a statin and starting dialysis, it’s important to discuss with him or her whether to continue the statin, based on perceived benefits and risks. It is not recommended that statins be initiated in patients on dialysis unless there is a specific cardiovascular indication for doing so. Risk reduction with a statin has been shown to be significantly less in dialysis patients than in patients who are not being treated with dialysis.⁴⁹

Complications of CKD

Anemia is a common complication of CKD. KDIGO recommends measuring the ­hemoglobin concentration annually in DKD stage 3 patients without anemia; at least every 6 months in stage 4 patients; and at least every 3 months in stage 5. DKD patients with anemia should have additional laboratory testing: the absolute reticulocyte count, serum ferritin, serum transferrin saturation, vitamin B12, and folate.⁵¹

Mineral and bone disorder should be screened for in patients with DKD. TABLE 2⁵² outlines when clinical laboratory tests should be ordered to assess for mineral bone disease.

When to refer to a nephrologist

Refer patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (eGFR, ≤ 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) to a nephrologist for discussion of kidney replacement therapy.⁶ Patients with stage 3a CKD and severely increased albuminuria or with stage 3b CKD and moderately or severely increased albuminuria should also be referred to a nephrologist for intervention to delay disease progression.

Continue to: Identifying the need for early referral...

Nutritional control is important in DKD: A lowsodium diet can slow progression of DKD, and a low-potassium diet can prevent hyperkalemia in end-stage renal disease.

Identifying the need for early referral to a nephrologist has been shown to reduce the cost, and improve the quality, of care.⁵³ Other indications for earlier referral include uncertainty about the etiology of renal disease, persistent or severe albuminuria, persistent hematuria, a rapid decline in eGFR, and acute kidney injury. Additionally, referral at an earlier stage of DKD might be needed to assist with complications associated with DKD, such as anemia, secondary hyperparathyroidism, mineral and bone disorder, resistant hypertension, fluid overload, and electrolyte disturbances.⁶

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank Colleen Colbert, PhD, and Iqbal Ahmad, PhD, for their review and critique of the manuscript of this article. They also thank Christopher Babiuch, MD, for his guidance in the preparation of the manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Faraz Ahmad, MD, MPH, Care Point East Family Medicine, 543 Taylor Avenue, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43203; faraz. ahmad@osumc.edu.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

Patients with type 2 diabetes who follow a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) for at least 6 months appear to have significantly higher remission rates than those following other diets, although the benefits diminish by 12 months, suggests a new analysis of trial data from over 1,300 individuals.

“Based on other evidence, it is likely the degree of weight loss would have been a contributing factor, combined with the lower intake of dietary carbohydrates,” study coauthor Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Sydney, , said in an interview.

He acknowledged, however, that “diets in general can be difficult to sustain over the long term. ... We need to provide patients with easy-to-use support tools and convenient solutions to help them adhere to a low-carb diet long term to gain these greater health improvements.

“In addition, more long-term, well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine the effects of low-carb diets on sustained weight loss, diabetes remission, and health outcomes,” Dr. Brinkworth added.

The research was published on Janu. 13 in the BMJ by a consortium of international scientists, led by Joshua Z. Goldenberg, PhD, department of nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station.
 

Confusion as to best diet for those with diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a “significant and worsening” worldwide health problem, wrote Dr. Goldenberg and coauthors, in spite of “many pharmaceutical developments and a global emphasis on glycemic control.”

Although structured diets are “recognized as an essential component of treating diabetes, confusion remains about which diet to choose,” with multiple systemic reviews and meta-analyses of carbohydrate-restricted diets “reporting mixed results,” they noted.

They therefore undertook a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of LCDs and very-low-carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) using the CENTRAL, Medline, CINAHL, and CAB databases, as well as other literature sources.

Researchers defined LCDs as less than 130 g/day of carbohydrates or less than 26% of calories from carbohydrates as part of a 2,000 kcal/day diet and VLCDs as less than 50 g/day or less than 10% of daily calories. They focused on interventions that lasted at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 23 trials involving 1,357 participants met the inclusion criteria; 52% used VLCDs and the control comparator was a low-fat diet in 78% of the studies. The mean age range of patients was 47-67 years, and treatment duration spanned from 3 months to 2 years.

LCDs were associated with a higher rate of diabetes remission when defined as a hemoglobin A1c level of less than 6.5%, compared with control diets at 6 months, at 57% versus 31% – an increase in remission of 32% associated with LCDs (P < .001 for overall effect).

But when defined more tightly as an A1c level of less than 6.5% in the absence of diabetes medications, remission with LCDs was reduced to a nonsignificant 5% versus control diets at 6 months.

At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes.

Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients on an LCD achieved greater weight loss at 6 months than those on a control diet, at a mean reduction of 3.46 kg (approximately 7.6 lb). However, the researchers noted that, at 12 months, any weight-loss benefit was “trivial and nonsignificant.”

A similar pattern was seen for reductions in A1c and fasting glucose levels with LCDs: Notable reductions at 6 months largely disappeared by 12 months.

LCDs were also associated with “greater reductions in diabetes medication and clinically important benefits” in triglycerides and insulin resistance at 6 and 12 months, the team wrote.
 

VLCDs: Adherence Is key

Finally, the team looked at weight loss achieved with VLCDs.

VLCDs were less effective for weight loss at 6 months than less restrictive LCDs. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence, the researchers noted.

Restricting the analysis to “credible” studies, VLCDs were associated with a larger “clinically important” weight-loss versus control diets when patients were highly adherent to the diet, at a mean reduction of 4.47 kg (9.9 lb) versus a mean increase of 0.55 kg (1.2 lb) among patients who were less adherent.

The team noted that their review has a number of limitations, not least of which is the definition of diabetes remission used, which “is the subject of considerable debate,” as well as the safety concerns raised over LCDs.

Given the latter concerns, “clinicians might consider short-term LCDs for management of type 2 diabetes, while actively monitoring and adjusting diabetes medication as needed,” they concluded.

This study was funded in part by Texas A&M University. One coauthor reported receiving funding from Texas A&M AgriLife Research for a separate research project. Dr. Brinkworth is author of the book “The CSIRO Low Carb Diet,” but does not receive financial royalties or funds either directly or indirectly.

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

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A one-stop shop approach to managing the spectrum of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes with a coordinated, multidisciplinary team of clinicians has taken root in at least two U.S. medical centers, and their efforts have now joined to take this concept national through the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, which hopes to have at least 20 such centers running by the end of 2022.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), “multiple organs are affected by the same disease process,” notably the heart, kidneys, vasculature, and liver, but the care these patients often receive today is “fragmented, and typically without good coordination,” explained Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Saint Luke’s Michael & Marlys Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence in Kansas City, Mo.

“We need to depart from the outdated idea that each medical specialty focuses on an organ system. It’s one patient with one disease that affects multiple organs and needs comprehensive, multidisciplinary care,” he said.

Historically, “we’ve looked to primary care physicians to ‘conduct the orchestra’ for complex, multispecialty care” for patients with T2D, but a recent “avalanche” of new treatments with new data and recommendations has made coordination by a single, generalist physician essentially impossible. “It isn’t realistic” to expect a single primary care physician to coordinate all the care a patient with T2D now needs to receive, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Plus, “patients can get lost” when they try to navigate on their own among several physicians, possibly in disparate locations, and without fully understanding what each physician is responsible for managing.
 

Application of recommended treatments ‘lagging’

“The data are there, and the recommendations are there for T2D and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and diabetic kidney disease, but the problem has been implementation,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Application in practice is lagging way behind the recommendations.” That led him and his associates to devise a “new model of care for patients with T2D,” the cardiometabolic center (CMC), as a status quo alternative.

The CMC paradigm is that patients with T2D, especially those with existing cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease or at high risk for these complications, undergo assessment and treatment at one site from a multidisciplinary staff of physicians and allied caregivers including nurse practitioners, nurse coordinators, pharmacists, dieticians, and diabetes educators who are cross-trained for managing both T2D and cardiovascular diseases.

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance builds on the idea that this care model is defined by a set of detailed treatment protocols and processes of care that other sites can adopt to boost the number of patients aided by this approach, to gather data from a larger patient pool in a dedicated registry to better document the program’s impact, and to form a quality-improvement network that can collectively improve performance.

“It’s absolutely replicable,” maintained Dr. Kosiborod, who is also executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance. “We’ve codified all of the care and medications into an impressive package. We now have something that works, and many other centers are interested in building programs like this. By establishing a base of well-defined protocols and operating procedures we can train a cadre of allied professionals who can effectively implement the program across wider populations of patients, while using the brick and mortar center to manage more complex patients,” he added.

“We’re not taking patients” from primary care physicians, Dr. Kosiborod stressed. “We’re helping generalists give better care. They already have their hands full. We’re here to help physicians do better.”

He cited a recent study of 1,735 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and diabetes (96% with T2D) enrolled in a registry at 119 U.S. sites during 2016-2018 that found less than 7% were on the full range of guideline-directed medical therapy that they qualified for based on existing treatment guidelines. “This is not acceptable,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.

“It’s so obvious that this needs to be a combined approach. It’s very difficult to have one provider take care of all of the T2D complications. There needs to be a new approach, and [the Cardiometabolic Center program at Saint Luke’s] has done a great job getting their initiative underway to take a more global approach,” commented Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, chief of the diabetes division and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
 

Early results show improved metrics

The Saint Luke’s Haverty CMC launched in 2019, and data from its first 129 patients with at least one follow-up visit documented early efficacy for the program, as reported at the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcome’s Research meeting, held virtually on May 15 and 16, 2020.

That analysis from Dr. Kosiborod and associates compared various short-term metrics among their CMC patients against a control cohort of 387 similar patients with T2D who also received care in the Saint Luke’s Health System during 2019 but outside of the CMC. This observational study involved no patient randomization, but the researchers used propensity scoring to match the control patients with those managed in the CMC by several demographic and clinical parameters.

During follow-up that was generally less than 6 months, patients managed in the CMC averaged 12 pounds of weight loss, a 0.5% reduction in their average hemoglobin A1c, a mean 4.6–mm Hg cut in their systolic blood pressure, an average drop in their LDL cholesterol of 11.4 mg/dL, and among those receiving insulin the daily, average insulin dose fell by a relative 43%, compared with baseline. Among the controls, averages for these five parameters were weight loss of 2 pounds, a cut in A1c of 0.2%, a systolic blood pressure reduction of 0.6 mm Hg, a drop in LDL cholesterol of 4.9 mg/dL, and a relative rise in insulin dose of 6%. All of these between group differences were statistically significant except for LDL cholesterol.

Additional analysis of the medications that patients in the CMC and control group received also showed striking differences. Combined prescriptions for all components of guideline-directed medical therapy went to 41% of the CMC patients, compared with 2% of the controls, a statistically significant difference. Contributing to this difference were significantly increased rates of prescriptions for ACE inhibitors and statins.

The CMC staff also started 57% of their patients on a SGLT2 inhibitor and 90% on a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), compared with rates of 18% and 13%, respectively, among controls. Both of these between-group differences were also significant, and they highlighted the willingness and success of the CMC clinicians to put a large number of their patients on agents from both of these beneficial drug classes. This is a notable change from usual recent practice that limits most patients who actually receive these medications to a drug from just one of these two classes, often because of real or perceived limits on insurance coverage.

The data from these initial patients in the Saint Luke’s CMC show that the program was “very successful; it looks very promising,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The results show “transformational improvement in the quality of care.” Subsequent to this initial cohort from 2019, the Saint Luke’s CMC has seen “hundreds” of additional patients with T2D.
 

The Cardiometabolic Center Alliance gets started

The second member of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is a program run by the University Hospitals system based in Cleveland that had begun earlier in 2020. The University Hospitals’ Center for Integrated and Novel Approaches in Vascular-Metabolic Disease (CINEMA) uses a comprehensive, multidisciplinary-care model developed independently of but very similar to the Saint Luke’s CMC. By the end of 2020, the CINEMA program had managed about 150 patients, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, director of CINEMA and a professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

“Our outcomes have been quite similar” to what the Saint Luke’s program reported, he said. “We had better use of guideline-directed therapies, more weight loss, and better control of metabolic parameters.” The CINEMA program entered the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance as a “key strategic partner,” which means it will have a role in shaping the alliance going forward. One issue the alliance faces is how to leverage its growth to improve management of patients with T2D who do not have access to a CMC.

The CMCs “are not meant for every patient with T2D, but for those with high risk for cardiovascular complications who require extra attention,” Dr. Rajagopalan said in an interview. Both he and Dr. Kosiborod acknowledged that, even if 200 CMCs were to eventually open, and even if each center averaged 5,000 managed patients, those 1 million patients would be a small fraction of the total number of U.S. patients with T2D.

“Having these centers will produce a ripple effect. The protocols will percolate to primary care physicians,” Dr. Rajagopalan predicted. Once that happens, “not all patients will need to go to a cardiometabolic center.” In addition, leveraging established protocols via nurse coordinators and virtual care could bring this model to many more patients, Dr. Kosiborod noted.

By the end of 2020, a total of three additional U.S. centers had joined Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals in the alliance, but Dr. Kosiborod said that none of the three had yet been officially announced. The alliance has also started a national cardiometabolic registry, which will be “instrumental for its mission to track, benchmark, and improve quality of care and outcomes; enable mechanisms for “learning health care systems”; and can be used to answer important research questions,” Dr. Kosiborod said.

Combined SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA treatment takes off

A key element of the more aggressive, risk-driven management emphasized in the CMC approach is frequent use of combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA. Both classes of glucose-lowering drugs have well-documented, risk-reducing benefits, notably reduced atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and weight loss produced by the GLP1-RAs, and cuts in heart failure onset and hospitalizations and slowing of chronic kidney disease progression by the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Until now, medical society recommendations as well as opinion leaders have approached these two drug classes with a presumption that physicians would usually prescribe patients an agent from only one of these two classes, largely because the high cost of agents in both classes, all still under patent, often means coverage limits by insurers. Physicians at both the Saint Luke’s and University Hospitals programs have been more proactive, and successful, in prescribing agents from both classes to their high-risk patients with T2D.

“We use combination treatment quite a bit,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “It’s very sensible to use both. Their mechanisms of action are different and likely don’t overlap, so it’s reasonable to presume their activity is complimentary.” But he acknowledged that this has not yet been formally studied for cardiovascular or renal outcomes. Study results have documented complimentary effects between the two classes for weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and to some extent A1c reduction. A key reason for more frequent combined treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA is increased focus on the ability of both drug classes to lower risk in patients with T2D and high cardiovascular-disease risk, rather than prescribing decisions driven largely by trying to further reduce a patient’s A1c.

Although insurance coverage is not a given, the Saint Luke’s CMC has had good results using patient-assistance programs run by various drug companies. Some patients have received their medications free of charge or with modest copays, depending on their income and insurance coverage. At Saint Luke’s, “many” patients with T2D have been able to get free medications through assistance programs, he said. And for patients with health insurance, getting coverage for an agent from each class “is easier now than it was 3-4 years ago.”

Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several companies, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. DeFronzo received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Janssen, and Merck; he has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; and he has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rajagopalan has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and Takeda.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors during acute COVID-19 illness raises the risk for euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis (euDKA), a new case series suggests.

Five patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking SGLT2 inhibitors presented in DKA despite having glucose levels below 300 mg/dL. The report was published online last month in AACE Clinical Case Reports by Rebecca J. Vitale, MD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“A cluster of euglycemic DKA cases at our hospital during the first wave of the pandemic suggests that patients with diabetes taking SGLT2 inhibitors may be at enhanced risk for euDKA when they contract COVID-19,” senior author Naomi D.L. Fisher, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Fisher, an endocrinologist, added: “This complication is preventable with the simple measure of holding the drug. We are hopeful that widespread patient and physician education will prevent future cases of euDKA as COVID-19 infections continue to surge.”

These cases underscore recommendations published early in the COVID-19 pandemic by an international panel, she noted.

“Patients who are acutely ill with nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, or diarrhea, or who are experiencing loss of appetite with reduced food and fluid intake, should be advised to hold their SGLT2 inhibitor. This medication should not be resumed until patients are feeling better and eating and drinking normally.”  

On the other hand, “If patients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 infection are otherwise well, and are eating and drinking normally, there is no evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors need to be stopped. These patients should monitor [themselves] closely for worsening symptoms, especially resulting in poor hydration and nutrition, which would be reason to discontinue their medication.” 
 

Pay special attention to the elderly, those with complications

However, special consideration should be given to elderly patients and those with medical conditions known to increase the likelihood of severe infection, like heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Fisher added.

The SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs causes significant urinary glucose excretion, and they are also diuretics. A decrease in available glucose and volume depletion are probably both important contributors to euDKA, she explained.

With COVID-19 infection the euDKA risk is compounded by several mechanisms. Most cases of euDKA are associated with an underlying state of starvation that can be triggered by vomiting, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and poor oral intake.

In addition – although not yet known for certain – SARS-CoV-2 may also be toxic to pancreatic beta cells and thus reduce insulin secretion. The maladaptive inflammatory response seen with COVID-19 may also contribute, she said.  

The patients in the current case series were three men and two women seen between March and May 2020. They ranged in age from 52 to 79 years.

None had a prior history of DKA or any known diabetes complications. In all of them, antihyperglycemic medications, including SGLT2 inhibitors, were stopped on hospital admission. The patients were initially treated with intravenous insulin, and then subcutaneous insulin after the DKA diagnosis.

Three of the patients were discharged to rehabilitation facilities on hospital days 28-47 and one (age 53 years) was discharged home on day 11. The other patient also had hypertension and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

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