Diabetes

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

Patients undergoing bariatric surgery for obesity showed significant declines in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications up to 15 years after the procedure compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.

“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.

“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.

The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.

However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
 

Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed

When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.

Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.

However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.

To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.

Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.

They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.  

In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.

Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.

Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
 

Causes?

As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”

“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.

The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.

“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.

“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.

In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.

Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.

“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

People who develop type 2 diabetes before age 60 years are at threefold greater risk for dementia compared with those who don’t develop diabetes, new findings suggest.

Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was  published online in Diabetologia.

The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.  

“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.  

Johns Hopkins University

Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”

This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
 

Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development

Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.

Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.

After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.  
 

Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk  

Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).

The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).  

“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.

Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.

“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”

The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.

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

Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
 

The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.

It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
 

Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro

Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.

When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.

Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.

Alopecia (hair loss) was an uncommon side effect in the clinical trials of these medications; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.

In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.

In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
 

Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?

None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.

“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
 

Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss

The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.

“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.

This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.

About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.

“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.

“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”

Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.

“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”

Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.

“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”

Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
 

Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid

“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”

“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”

“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.

Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.

“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.

Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”

“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”

However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.

Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”

In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.

“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.

“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”

Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
 

The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.

It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
 

Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro

Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.

When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.

Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.

Alopecia (hair loss) was an uncommon side effect in the clinical trials of these medications; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.

In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.

In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
 

Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?

None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.

“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
 

Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss

The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.

“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.

This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.

About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.

“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.

“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”

Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.

“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”

Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.

“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”

Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
 

Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid

“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”

“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”

“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.

Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.

“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.

Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”

“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”

However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.

Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”

In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.

“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.

“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”

Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Should people be concerned about possible hair loss when taking Wegovy, Ozempic, or Mounjaro for weight loss (where the latter two drugs are being used off label) – as was recently claimed by some people on social media and reported in news stories?
 

The consensus among dermatologists and endocrinologists is no.

It’s up to the individual to weigh the benefits of treating obesity against the risks of the therapy, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss, says one expert.
 

Wegovy, Ozempic, and Mounjaro

Of these three newer medications, only the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (since June 2021) for weight management – specifically for people with either obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) or overweight (BMI ≥ 27) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and high cholesterol – with a dosage up to a 2.4-mg weekly injection.

When there was a short supply of Wegovy soon after it became available, some people turned to the same drug – semaglutide, but marketed as Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, which is titrated up to a 2-mg weekly injection. Still others opted for tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. Tirzepatide is approved for type 2 diabetes in the United States but is not yet approved for weight loss.

Wegovy shortages continue to be reported.

Alopecia (hair loss) was an uncommon side effect in the clinical trials of these medications; of interest, it was more common after bariatric surgery.

In clinical trials, 3% of patients receiving Wegovy (a 2.4-mg/wk injection) versus 1% of patients receiving placebo reported alopecia. Hair loss was not reported as a side effect in clinical trials of Ozempic (a 2-mg/wk injection) for type 2 diabetes. In a clinical trial of tirzepatide for weight loss in obesity, 5.7% of patients taking the highest dose (a 15-mg once-weekly injection) reported alopecia vs 1% of those who got a placebo.

In contrast, a review of 18 mostly observational studies reported that 57% of patients had hair loss after bariatric surgery.
 

Is it the drug or the rapid weight loss?

None of the experts consulted for this article had seen patients who came to them about hair loss while taking these drugs for weight loss.

“I have not seen patients complaining of hair loss from these medications, but perhaps it is just a matter of time,” said Lynne J. Goldberg, MD, a professor of dermatology and pathology and laboratory medicine, at Boston University, and director of the hair clinic at Boston Medical Center.

“Some of my patients lose hair when they lose weight, generally as a result of the weight loss itself and not as a side effect of these medications,” said Katharine H. Saunders, MD, an obesity medicine physician, cofounder of Intellihealth, and an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“Hair loss from rapid weight loss is very common [and] not necessarily a side effect of the medication itself but more as a result of how quickly the weight loss occurs,” echoed Susan Massick, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University, and a dermatologist at Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, both in Columbus.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

“Hair loss is tricky,” observed Anne Peters, MD, director of clinical diabetes programs at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Losing weight and/or changing your diet causes hair loss. Stress can cause hair loss. So, it is hard to separate weight loss from medication effect.”
 

Telogen effluvium (stress shedding) with rapid weight loss

The hair loss seems to be associated with rapid weight loss, the experts agreed.

“It is rare, but we can see patients who have a period of diffuse hair loss, called telogen effluvium, or ‘stress shedding’ with rapid weight loss,” said Michael A. Weintraub, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, New York.

This hair loss occurs in relation to either physical (surgery, pregnancy, illness) or emotional stress, added Dr. Weintraub, who is an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Hair loss caused by rapid weight loss could be caused by an antiobesity medication, but it could also occur with other obesity treatments, such as bariatric surgery or drastic dietary changes, he said. The hair shedding is typically short lived and reversible.

About 80%-85% of hair is in the anagen (growth) phase, about 5% is in a transitional (catagen) phase, and the rest is in telogen (resting, or shedding) phase, Dr. Massick explained. In telogen effluvium, hairs that are normally in the growth phase get suddenly shifted to telogen phase and are shed rapidly.

“Telogen effluvium can be caused by rapid weight loss, major surgery, severe COVID infection, high fever, or death in the family,” she noted. “You will not go bald with telogen effluvium, but you might find that you may lose a good volume of hair,” much more than the normal loss of up to 100 hairs a day.

“I counsel my patients about the possibility of losing hair before they undergo bariatric surgery,” Dr. Saunders said. “Generally, the health benefits of weight loss and weight maintenance outweigh the risk of temporary hair loss.”

Nutritional deficiencies and malnutrition can contribute to hair loss as well, and iron deficiency is sometimes a culprit, she added.

“If someone is worried” about hair loss associated with weight loss, “they should see their doctor,” Dr. Peters said. “If they are on thyroid hormone, in particular, the levels should be retested after weight loss.”

Hair loss appears more common after bariatric surgery than with antiobesity medications,” Dr. Weintraub observed, and it is unclear whether this is because the weight loss is more dramatic after surgery and thus a greater stressor, or whether it is caused by nutrient deficiency or a different mechanism entirely.

“Unlike certain forms of bariatric surgery, which can lead to malabsorption (e.g., Roux-en-Y gastric bypass), medications such as GLP-1 agonists and GLP-1/GIP dual agonists do not cause malabsorption,” Dr. Weintraub noted. “So nutritional deficiencies are less likely to be the cause of new hair loss in those taking antiobesity medications than [in] someone who underwent bariatric surgery.”

Iron and vitamin D deficiencies are the most common nutritional deficiencies that can cause hair loss, he noted.
 

Slow and steady weight loss rather than rapid

“I would suggest that patients try to keep the weight loss slow and steady, rather than rapid,” Dr. Goldberg said, “and follow any vitamin/mineral supplementation plan that they are given. Patients with bariatric surgery have nutritional guidance and a supplementation plan.”

“Follow a well-balanced dietary strategy with ample protein, vegetables, and some fruit,” Dr. Saunders said. Health care providers should monitor lab tests to check for and treat vitamin deficiencies, and registered dietitians can be crucial to ensure proper nutrition. She advises patients: “Find coping strategies to reduce stress and get enough sleep. If iron levels are low, start an iron supplement under your provider’s supervision.”

“Some of my patients swear by biotin supplements, prenatal vitamins or ‘hair, skin, and nails’ vitamins,” she added. If hair loss doesn’t stop, a dermatologist can look for other contributors and discuss strategies for hair restoration.

Individuals who undergo bariatric surgery require lifelong vitamin supplementation and yearly (or more frequent) lab testing, she noted.

“With, for example, bariatric surgery or any type of diet change you want to make sure you still maintain a balanced diet, whether its calories, protein, iron, zinc, vitamins (vitamin D for example),” Dr. Massick echoed.

Similarly, Dr. Peters advised: “I would say to maintain a normal healthy diet even if eating less. Exercise. Do all those healthy things. Taking a daily multivitamin isn’t a bad idea. Talk with a nutritionist. Use the appetite suppression of the medication to combine with healthy eating.”

“If someone is having new hair loss, they should see their clinician to evaluate for all possible causes,” Dr. Weintraub said. “Their provider can evaluate for underlying causes like thyroid dysfunction, iron deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency.”

However, if a patient’s pattern of hair loss is not diffuse but occurs in patches, this has an entirely different set of etiologies probably unrelated to antiobesity medication and should be evaluated.

Working with a nutritionist to ensure that patients have sufficient protein and micronutrient intake can lower the risk of developing hair loss and other complications, Dr. Weintraub said. “This is particularly important for certain forms of bariatric surgery such as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, since that can lead to malabsorption of specific vitamins and minerals that need to be periodically measured and supplemented.”

In individuals starting an antiobesity medication, beginning a daily multivitamin has little harm, he added, and can ensure they are getting essential minerals and vitamins. However, no studies have specifically investigated this yet.

“Ultimately, it’s important to weigh the benefits of antiobesity medications against the potential risks, as we do with any medical intervention,” according to Dr. Weintraub.

“The purpose of treating obesity,” he stressed, “is to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, and multiple types of cancers. It’s up to the individual to weigh these benefits against the risks of the treatment, including the low risk of developing temporary hair loss.”

Dr. Peters writes a column for Medscape and disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care; received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care; and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Saunders, Dr. Massick, and Dr. Weintraub declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

Patients with arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVD) appear to also be deficient in oxytocin, the “love hormone,” suggesting a possible pathway for treating the psychological symptoms associated with the illness.
 

Formerly known as central diabetes insipidus, AVD is a rare neuroendocrine condition in which fluid isn’t regulated, leading to polydipsia and polyuria. The vasopressin receptor 2 agonist desmopressin treats those symptoms, but patients often also experience psychopathological problems, such as increased anxiety, depression, and emotional withdrawal.

It has been hypothesized that those symptoms are caused by a concurrent deficiency of the so-called “love hormone” oxytocin, given the anatomic proximity of vasopressin and oxytocin production in the brain.

Now, for the first time, researchers have demonstrated evidence of that phenomenon using 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, also known as “ecstasy”) to provoke oxytocin release. In individuals without AVD, use of MDMA resulted in large increases in plasma oxytocin concentrations, whereas there was very little response among those with AVD, suggesting that the latter patients were deficient in oxytocin.

“These findings are suggestive of a new hypothalamic–pituitary disease entity and contribute to deepening our understanding of oxytocin as a key hormone in centrally generated socioemotional effects, as reflected by reduced prosocial, empathic, and anxiolytic effects in patients with an oxytocin deficiency,” Cihan Atila, MD, of the University of Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote.

“Future studies should evaluate whether oxytocin replacement therapy can alleviate residual symptoms related to oxytocin deficiency in patients with [AVD],” they added.

The findings, from a single-center study of 15 patients with AVD and 15 healthy control persons, were published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

“Atila and colleagues provide compelling evidence for a clinically relevant oxytocin deficiency in this population of patients, which appears to be at least partly responsible for the associated increase in psychopathological findings,” say Mirela Diana Ilie, MD, an endocrinologist in training at the National Institute of Endocrinology, Bucharest, Romania, and Gérald Raverot, MD, professor of endocrinology at Lyon (France) University Hospital, France, in an accompanying editorial.

“From a therapeutic viewpoint, the findings ... pave the way to intervention studies assessing the effect of intranasal oxytocin in patients with [AVD] and better clinical care for these patients,” they add.

However, Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot urged caution for a variety of reasons, including the fact that, thus far, only one patient with arginine vasopressin deficiency has been administered oxytocin on a long-term basis. They suggested further studies to answer many pertinent questions, such as what the appropriate doses and frequency of oxytocin administration are, whether the dose should remain constant or be increased during stress or particular acute situations, whether long-term administration is suitable for all patients regardless of the extent of oxytocin deficiency, and how follow-up should be conducted.

“Answering these questions seems all the more important considering that oxytocin therapy has shown conflicting results when administered for psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot.

In the meantime, “independent of the potential use of oxytocin, given the frequent and important psychological burden of [AVD], clinicians should screen patients for psychological comorbidities and should not hesitate to refer them to appropriate psychological and psychiatric care,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin levels in patients vs. control persons

The 15 AVD patients and 15 matched healthy control persons were recruited between Feb. 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Of those with AVD, eight had an isolated posterior pituitary dysfunction, and seven had a combined pituitary dysfunction. The patients had significantly higher scores on measures of anxiety, alexithymia, and depression, and self-reported mental health was lower, compared with control persons.

All participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single oral dose of MDMA 100 mg or placebo in the first experimental session and the opposite treatment in a second session. There was a 2-week washout period in between.

Median oxytocin concentrations at baseline were 77 pg/mL in the healthy control persons and peaked after MDMA stimulation to 624 pg/mL after 180 minutes, with a maximum of 659 pg/mL. In contrast, among the patients with AVD, baseline oxytocin levels were 60 pg/mL and peaked to just 92 pg/mL after 150 minutes, with a maximum change in concentration of 66 pg/mL.

In response to MDMA, there was an eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin area under the curve among the control persons versus no notable increase in the patients with AVD.

The net incremental oxytocin area under the curve after MDMA administration was 82% higher among control persons than patients (P < .0001).

The MDMA-induced increase in oxytocin was associated with reduced anxiety scores among the control persons but not the AVD patients. Similar results were seen for subjective prosocial and empathic effects.

The most frequently reported adverse effects of the MDMA provocation in both groups were fatigue, lack of appetite, and dry mouth, all of which occurred in more than half of participants.

“These findings contradict the previous theory that oxytocin stimulation has only a secondary role in the effects of MDMA. Our results, by contrast, suggest a paradigm shift and underline the importance of oxytocin as a key feature of the effects of MDMA,” Dr. Atila and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Atila, Dr. Ilie, and Dr. Raverot have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor owns stock in MiniMed.

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

Patients with arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVD) appear to also be deficient in oxytocin, the “love hormone,” suggesting a possible pathway for treating the psychological symptoms associated with the illness.
 

Formerly known as central diabetes insipidus, AVD is a rare neuroendocrine condition in which fluid isn’t regulated, leading to polydipsia and polyuria. The vasopressin receptor 2 agonist desmopressin treats those symptoms, but patients often also experience psychopathological problems, such as increased anxiety, depression, and emotional withdrawal.

It has been hypothesized that those symptoms are caused by a concurrent deficiency of the so-called “love hormone” oxytocin, given the anatomic proximity of vasopressin and oxytocin production in the brain.

Now, for the first time, researchers have demonstrated evidence of that phenomenon using 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, also known as “ecstasy”) to provoke oxytocin release. In individuals without AVD, use of MDMA resulted in large increases in plasma oxytocin concentrations, whereas there was very little response among those with AVD, suggesting that the latter patients were deficient in oxytocin.

“These findings are suggestive of a new hypothalamic–pituitary disease entity and contribute to deepening our understanding of oxytocin as a key hormone in centrally generated socioemotional effects, as reflected by reduced prosocial, empathic, and anxiolytic effects in patients with an oxytocin deficiency,” Cihan Atila, MD, of the University of Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote.

“Future studies should evaluate whether oxytocin replacement therapy can alleviate residual symptoms related to oxytocin deficiency in patients with [AVD],” they added.

The findings, from a single-center study of 15 patients with AVD and 15 healthy control persons, were published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

“Atila and colleagues provide compelling evidence for a clinically relevant oxytocin deficiency in this population of patients, which appears to be at least partly responsible for the associated increase in psychopathological findings,” say Mirela Diana Ilie, MD, an endocrinologist in training at the National Institute of Endocrinology, Bucharest, Romania, and Gérald Raverot, MD, professor of endocrinology at Lyon (France) University Hospital, France, in an accompanying editorial.

“From a therapeutic viewpoint, the findings ... pave the way to intervention studies assessing the effect of intranasal oxytocin in patients with [AVD] and better clinical care for these patients,” they add.

However, Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot urged caution for a variety of reasons, including the fact that, thus far, only one patient with arginine vasopressin deficiency has been administered oxytocin on a long-term basis. They suggested further studies to answer many pertinent questions, such as what the appropriate doses and frequency of oxytocin administration are, whether the dose should remain constant or be increased during stress or particular acute situations, whether long-term administration is suitable for all patients regardless of the extent of oxytocin deficiency, and how follow-up should be conducted.

“Answering these questions seems all the more important considering that oxytocin therapy has shown conflicting results when administered for psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot.

In the meantime, “independent of the potential use of oxytocin, given the frequent and important psychological burden of [AVD], clinicians should screen patients for psychological comorbidities and should not hesitate to refer them to appropriate psychological and psychiatric care,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin levels in patients vs. control persons

The 15 AVD patients and 15 matched healthy control persons were recruited between Feb. 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Of those with AVD, eight had an isolated posterior pituitary dysfunction, and seven had a combined pituitary dysfunction. The patients had significantly higher scores on measures of anxiety, alexithymia, and depression, and self-reported mental health was lower, compared with control persons.

All participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single oral dose of MDMA 100 mg or placebo in the first experimental session and the opposite treatment in a second session. There was a 2-week washout period in between.

Median oxytocin concentrations at baseline were 77 pg/mL in the healthy control persons and peaked after MDMA stimulation to 624 pg/mL after 180 minutes, with a maximum of 659 pg/mL. In contrast, among the patients with AVD, baseline oxytocin levels were 60 pg/mL and peaked to just 92 pg/mL after 150 minutes, with a maximum change in concentration of 66 pg/mL.

In response to MDMA, there was an eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin area under the curve among the control persons versus no notable increase in the patients with AVD.

The net incremental oxytocin area under the curve after MDMA administration was 82% higher among control persons than patients (P < .0001).

The MDMA-induced increase in oxytocin was associated with reduced anxiety scores among the control persons but not the AVD patients. Similar results were seen for subjective prosocial and empathic effects.

The most frequently reported adverse effects of the MDMA provocation in both groups were fatigue, lack of appetite, and dry mouth, all of which occurred in more than half of participants.

“These findings contradict the previous theory that oxytocin stimulation has only a secondary role in the effects of MDMA. Our results, by contrast, suggest a paradigm shift and underline the importance of oxytocin as a key feature of the effects of MDMA,” Dr. Atila and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Atila, Dr. Ilie, and Dr. Raverot have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor owns stock in MiniMed.

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

Patients with arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVD) appear to also be deficient in oxytocin, the “love hormone,” suggesting a possible pathway for treating the psychological symptoms associated with the illness.
 

Formerly known as central diabetes insipidus, AVD is a rare neuroendocrine condition in which fluid isn’t regulated, leading to polydipsia and polyuria. The vasopressin receptor 2 agonist desmopressin treats those symptoms, but patients often also experience psychopathological problems, such as increased anxiety, depression, and emotional withdrawal.

It has been hypothesized that those symptoms are caused by a concurrent deficiency of the so-called “love hormone” oxytocin, given the anatomic proximity of vasopressin and oxytocin production in the brain.

Now, for the first time, researchers have demonstrated evidence of that phenomenon using 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, also known as “ecstasy”) to provoke oxytocin release. In individuals without AVD, use of MDMA resulted in large increases in plasma oxytocin concentrations, whereas there was very little response among those with AVD, suggesting that the latter patients were deficient in oxytocin.

“These findings are suggestive of a new hypothalamic–pituitary disease entity and contribute to deepening our understanding of oxytocin as a key hormone in centrally generated socioemotional effects, as reflected by reduced prosocial, empathic, and anxiolytic effects in patients with an oxytocin deficiency,” Cihan Atila, MD, of the University of Basel (Switzerland), and colleagues wrote.

“Future studies should evaluate whether oxytocin replacement therapy can alleviate residual symptoms related to oxytocin deficiency in patients with [AVD],” they added.

The findings, from a single-center study of 15 patients with AVD and 15 healthy control persons, were published online in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

“Atila and colleagues provide compelling evidence for a clinically relevant oxytocin deficiency in this population of patients, which appears to be at least partly responsible for the associated increase in psychopathological findings,” say Mirela Diana Ilie, MD, an endocrinologist in training at the National Institute of Endocrinology, Bucharest, Romania, and Gérald Raverot, MD, professor of endocrinology at Lyon (France) University Hospital, France, in an accompanying editorial.

“From a therapeutic viewpoint, the findings ... pave the way to intervention studies assessing the effect of intranasal oxytocin in patients with [AVD] and better clinical care for these patients,” they add.

However, Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot urged caution for a variety of reasons, including the fact that, thus far, only one patient with arginine vasopressin deficiency has been administered oxytocin on a long-term basis. They suggested further studies to answer many pertinent questions, such as what the appropriate doses and frequency of oxytocin administration are, whether the dose should remain constant or be increased during stress or particular acute situations, whether long-term administration is suitable for all patients regardless of the extent of oxytocin deficiency, and how follow-up should be conducted.

“Answering these questions seems all the more important considering that oxytocin therapy has shown conflicting results when administered for psychiatric disorders,” said Dr. Ilie and Dr. Raverot.

In the meantime, “independent of the potential use of oxytocin, given the frequent and important psychological burden of [AVD], clinicians should screen patients for psychological comorbidities and should not hesitate to refer them to appropriate psychological and psychiatric care,” the editorialists wrote.
 

Eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin levels in patients vs. control persons

The 15 AVD patients and 15 matched healthy control persons were recruited between Feb. 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Of those with AVD, eight had an isolated posterior pituitary dysfunction, and seven had a combined pituitary dysfunction. The patients had significantly higher scores on measures of anxiety, alexithymia, and depression, and self-reported mental health was lower, compared with control persons.

All participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single oral dose of MDMA 100 mg or placebo in the first experimental session and the opposite treatment in a second session. There was a 2-week washout period in between.

Median oxytocin concentrations at baseline were 77 pg/mL in the healthy control persons and peaked after MDMA stimulation to 624 pg/mL after 180 minutes, with a maximum of 659 pg/mL. In contrast, among the patients with AVD, baseline oxytocin levels were 60 pg/mL and peaked to just 92 pg/mL after 150 minutes, with a maximum change in concentration of 66 pg/mL.

In response to MDMA, there was an eightfold increase in plasma oxytocin area under the curve among the control persons versus no notable increase in the patients with AVD.

The net incremental oxytocin area under the curve after MDMA administration was 82% higher among control persons than patients (P < .0001).

The MDMA-induced increase in oxytocin was associated with reduced anxiety scores among the control persons but not the AVD patients. Similar results were seen for subjective prosocial and empathic effects.

The most frequently reported adverse effects of the MDMA provocation in both groups were fatigue, lack of appetite, and dry mouth, all of which occurred in more than half of participants.

“These findings contradict the previous theory that oxytocin stimulation has only a secondary role in the effects of MDMA. Our results, by contrast, suggest a paradigm shift and underline the importance of oxytocin as a key feature of the effects of MDMA,” Dr. Atila and colleagues concluded.

Dr. Atila, Dr. Ilie, and Dr. Raverot have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor owns stock in MiniMed.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Beta Bionics’s iLet ACE Pump and the iLet Dosing Decision Software for people ages 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes.
 

Working together with a previously cleared integrated continuous glucose monitor (CGM), the entire new system is called the iLet Bionic Pancreas. It differs from current automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in its increased level of automation. The adaptive algorithm is initialized using only the patient’s body weight, without other insulin dosing parameters. Rather than entering specific carbohydrate counts, users only input whether the carbohydrate amount in the meal is “small,” “medium,” or “large.” The algorithm adapts over time to users’ individual 24/7 insulin needs.

Pivotal data for the system were presented in June 2022 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In the 16-center trial involving 440 adults and children 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes, the system reduced hemoglobin A1c by 0.5 percentage points by 13 weeks, without increased hypoglycemia. They spent an average of 2.6 hours more time in range, compared with standard of care (either currently available AIDs, stand-alone pump and CGM devices, or multiple daily injections plus CGM).

The FDA had granted the iLet a breakthrough device designation in December 2019.

Anne L. Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes program, commented on the pivotal study and the system in June 2022. She called the study “cool” because it enrolled more than 25% minority individuals “who aren’t routinely studied in these insulin device trials” and also that it included people with a range of baseline A1c levels, with more than 30% greater than 8%.

Regarding the system’s algorithm, she pointed out that it “doesn’t allow for the individual using the pump to fidget with it. They can’t override the system and they can’t put in other insulin doses. The system is just there to take care of their diabetes.”

That might represent a limitation for some with type 1 diabetes, study coprincipal investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, said in an interview during the ADA meeting. “The iLet could dramatically reduce type 1 diabetes management burden for many patients, but it might not suit everyone. For example, somebody who’s very compulsive and has an A1c of 6.5% and is used to manipulating what they do, this is probably not a good system for them because the system is kind of taking over.”

On the other hand, Dr. Peters said, “I think what’s important about this system is that it may allow for greater use of automated insulin delivery systems. It may allow primary care providers to use these systems without needing all sorts of support, and patients may be able to use these devices more simply than a device where they have to do carb counting and adjusting in ways that I think tend to be pretty complicated and require higher numeracy and literacy skills.”

The “bionic pancreas” was originally conceived as a dual-hormone system including glucagon delivery as well as insulin. Beta Bionics is continuing to work with the FDA on that front.

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

DUBLIN – Substantial reductions in body weight across body mass index categories, as well as improved body composition, were achieved with tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in adults for chronic weight management, according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.

The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.

Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.

Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.

Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.

“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Weight loss and body composition explored

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization. 

The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m² (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m² (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m², and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m².

Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m², greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity).

In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).

The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).

The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.

By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category. 

“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m²,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”

As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.

“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”

Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported. 

Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.

With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.

“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.

Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.

“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”

“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”

The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.

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

DUBLIN – Substantial reductions in body weight across body mass index categories, as well as improved body composition, were achieved with tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in adults for chronic weight management, according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.

The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.

Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.

Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.

Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.

“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Weight loss and body composition explored

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization. 

The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m² (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m² (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m², and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m².

Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m², greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity).

In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).

The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).

The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.

By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category. 

“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m²,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”

As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.

“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”

Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported. 

Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.

With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.

“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.

Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.

“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”

“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”

The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.

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

DUBLIN – Substantial reductions in body weight across body mass index categories, as well as improved body composition, were achieved with tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in adults for chronic weight management, according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.

The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.

Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.

Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.

Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.

“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Weight loss and body composition explored

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization. 

The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m² (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m² (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m², and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m².

Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m², greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m² (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m² (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m² (class 3 obesity).

In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).

The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).

The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.

By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category. 

“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m²,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”

As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.

“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”

Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported. 

Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.

With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.

“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.

Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.

“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”

“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”

The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.

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