Diabetes

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Those of us who treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) daily have long recognized a disturbing irony: diabetes is a disease whose management requires consistency in approach and constancy in delivery, but it is most prevalent among those whose lives often allow little to no time for either. 

In our clinic, many patients with diabetes are struggling, in some way, to incorporate diabetes management into their daily lives. They are juggling multiple jobs and family responsibilities; they are working jobs with inconsistent access to food or refrigeration (such as farming, service industry work, and others); and many—even those with insurance—are struggling to afford their insulin and non insulin medications, insulin administration supplies, and glucose testing equipment.

Studies show how stress deleteriously affects this disease. The body does not deal well with these frequent and persistent stressors; higher cortisol levels result in higher blood glucose levels, increased systemic inflammation, and other drivers of both diabetes and its complications; all have been extensively documented. 

What has been frustrating for our clinical community is knowing that since the early 2000s, new diabetes medications and technologies have been available that can make a difference in our patients’ lives, but for various reasons, they have not been well adopted, particularly among patients most likely to benefit from them. Consequently, we have not consistently seen meaningfully reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels or reduced rates of acute or chronic diabetes complications. Therapeutic inertia exists at the patient, systemic, and physician levels. 

Many of the new glucose-lowering medications can also improve cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes with low risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain. Diabetes technologies like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have been demonstrated in clinical trials to improve A1c and reduce hypoglycemia risk. But the reality is that clinicians are seeing an increasing number of patients with high A1c, with hypoglycemia, with severe hyperglycemia, and with long-term diabetes complications. 

If these advancements are supposed to improve health outcomes, why are patient, community, and population health not improving? Why are some patients not receiving the care they need, while others get extra services that do not improve their health and may even harm them?

These advancements also create new questions for clinicians. At what point in the disease course should existing medications be ramped up, ramped down, or changed? Which patient characteristics or comorbidities allow or do not allow these changes?  When should we use technologies or when does their burden outweigh their potential benefits? What resources and support systems do our patients need to live well with their disease and how can these be procured?

Herein lies the problem: Diabetes is a dynamic disease that needs to be handled in a dynamic way, and that has not universally—or even frequently—occurred. Management must be a team endeavor, meaning that both patient and clinician must be proactive in diabetes management. It has been our experience, demonstrated in our work and in other studies, that success relies on a robust and comprehensive primary care system whose team members—physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, certified diabetes care and education specialists, social workers, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians—are all resilient and motivated to tackle one of the most complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional chronic health conditions in our practice.

Proactivity also includes consistent monitoring, learning from successes and failures, and public reporting. For the patient, proactive involvement generally means self-care multiple times a day.    

Let us now discuss the evidence that prompted our team’s proactive approach to caring for people living with diabetes.

Gauges and perspective

The prevalence of T2D in this country stands at 11.3% within the adult population. Between 2015 and 2020, death from diabetes increased by 27%.

For years, the research community has documented the wide range of socioeconomic factors that increase the risk for developing T2D and that, once developed, make it more difficult for patients to manage their disease and achieve optimal health outcomes that are possible with available medications and technologies. 

In 2019, Kazemian et al published work that examined the indicators of diabetes management progress (eg, A1c levels, cholesterol levels) of 1742 individuals, from 2005 to 2016. Just 23% to 25% of these patients achieved all goals, even though, during the study period, numerous medications were approved to manage disease better. Arguably, these should have improved the all-goal findings in the study. 

The first injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) was approved in 2005; between 2013 and 2016, the FDA also approved 4 sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Both medication classes can safely and effectively lower A1c with no weight gain and low risk for hypoglycemia. Over the past 4 years, a robust body of evidence has emerged to show that GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors not only lower A1c, but also reduce the likelihood of death from cardiovascular and kidney diseases. SGLT2 inhibitors are better at saving lives from hypertensive heart failure while the GLP-1 RAs are more protective from atherosclerotic cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, as compared with placebo. Yet, these medications have not been, and continue not to be, regularly prescribed. In 1 study, the authors found that the rate of use for SGLT2 inhibitors was 3.8% in 2015 and 11.9% in 2019.

But there are several other reasons that patients do not receive these medicines.

Insurance

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of  382,574 adults between 58 and 66 years of age, insured by either a Medicare Advantage plan or commercial insurance, and compared treatment initiation of the 3 most common brand-name, second-line diabetes medications (as opposed to generic sulfonylureas), between 2016 and 2019. The rate of initiation was universally lower for Medicare Advantage members vs commercially insured individuals. 

While the rates of initiation of GLP-1 RAs, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increased between 2016 and 2019, rates were significantly higher among patients with commercial insurance. Specifically, GLP-1 RA initiation increased from 2.1% to 20.0% among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.5% to 11.4% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. SGLT2 inhibitor initiation increased from 2.7% to 18.2% with commercial insurance and from 1.57% to 8.51% with Medicare Advantage. DPP-4 inhibitor initiation increased from 3.3% to 11.7% with commercial insurance and from 2.44% to 7.68% with Medicare Advantage. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating one of these 3 medications with Medicare Advantage as compared with commercial insurance ranged from 0.28 to 0.70 for GLP-1 RAs; from 0.21 to 0.57 for SGLT2 inhibitors; and from 0.37 to 0.73 for DPP-4 inhibitors. 

We also looked at the initiation of these medications in individuals with cardiorenal comorbidities. In many cases, a drug was prescribed indiscriminately. A patient who would benefit from a GLP-1 RA because of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or kidney disease was less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 RA than a medication like a DPP-4 inhibitor, which usually has the same formulary tier/class but does not have any of the cardiovascular or kidney benefits. Likewise, in those with heart failure or kidney disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor would have been the appropriate choice, but these patients were too often started on a DPP-4 inhibitor, which is not advised for those with heart failure and does provide kidney benefits. 

Last year, Tummalapalli et al, in their evaluation of 4135 US health plans, including commercial- or employer-based, Medicare, Medicaid, and other public health plans, identified multiple barriers to accessing SGLT2 inhibitor medications. While all plans included at least 1 SGLT2 inhibitor on their formularies, they restricted access in other ways. Prior authorizations were required by nearly half of Medicaid plans and nearly 40% of other public plans such as the Veterans Health Administration. Medicare and other public plans commonly imposed quantity limits on fills. Commercial plans frequently (up to 40%) required step therapy (use or failure of a generic diabetes medication) before approval. Copayments were also high in commercial plans, Medicare, and others. 

The need for prior authorizations dominates attempts to prescribe. Centene Corporation, for example, which manages plans for private and public payers, will not approve use of an SGLT2 inhibitor until the patient fails for 3 consecutive months on a prior treatment, has established cardiovascular disease or diabetic nephropathy, or has multiple cardiovascular risk factors. These comorbidities must be documented and verified, and the prior authorizations must be completed, often resulting in substantial administrative burden to clinicians. No wonder many, especially in primary care, may be wary of prescribing drugs that come with a paperwork trail and hours spent on documentation and insurance appeals, rather than on patient care.

The same can be said for prescribing a GLP-1 RA. United Healthcare’s Oxford Benefit Management requires that clinicians show a “history of suboptimal response, contraindication, or intolerance to metformin” before prescribing any of the 8 GLP-1 RAs. 

The average retail cost of 30 empagliflozin tablets, a once-daily medication, is $752. During the pandemic, 24% of the 5000 patients surveyed in an American Diabetes Association (ADA) poll used their stimulus check, relied on loans, or spent savings to pay for diabetes care. GLP-1 RA medications are even more expensive.  Depending on the patient’s pharmacy benefits, they may have to pay a substantial coinsurance out of pocket even after the annual deductible is met, creating financial barriers to starting and continuing recommended, evidence-based medications. Even if patients do get the recommended medications, they may be forced to ration other aspects of their lives, including other medications, food, and other necessities.

There are other important barriers to optimal utilization of evidence-based therapies, stemming from the fundamental social determinants of health: low income, low education level, and living in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood.  

Social Determinants of Health

Diabetes prevalence is higher in patients experiencing socioeconomic and other structural barriers to health and health care. Fundamentally, 1 study showed that prevalence of diabetes was 1.4 times higher among people living on less than $15,000 a year, as opposed to those earning at least $50,000 a year. 

The risk of diabetes complications is also higher in individuals experiencing food or housing insecurity, those who have low income or education level, and residents in rural and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods. Importantly, the same patient populations are also less likely to receive timely evidence-based care, contributing to and worsening health disparities. Despite their prevalence and importance, social determinants of health (SDoH) are not routinely recognized or discussed during clinical encounters, such that improving diabetes care and health outcomes is predicated on developing a system to screen for, recognize, and address the wide range of barriers faced by our patients. If a patient cannot afford a new medication or get to the clinic on a regular basis, lacks access to healthy food, or does not have time for diabetes self-management education or to focus on their health, then their well-being will suffer.

Many of these SDoH disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority populations as the direct result of longstanding and deeply embedded systems, policies, and laws that underlie disparities in diabetes incidence, prevalence, management, and outcomes. As such, structural racism is increasingly recognized as a root cause of health disparities in diabetes and other chronic health conditions.

Proactive strategies

Since reactive care has not and cannot provide patients with the help they need and deserve, many in the diabetes care community have turned to proactive, team-based care. The Chronic Care Model, established in the 1990s, stresses decision-making support, strong team organization and delivery system design, and the wherewithal to monitor progress continually. Research has shown that the best results for patients stem from a multidisciplinary, data-driven, and proactive approach to identifying and meeting the totality of patient care needs. 

The ADA stresses the importance of comprehensive, team-based care for successful management of diabetes. This includes expanding the role of teams to implement evidence-based diabetes care, using electronic health record tools to support timely and guideline-recommended delivery of services, empowering and educating patients and caregivers, eliciting and addressing financial and psychosocial barriers to care, and identifying, developing, and engaging community resources to support better health and well-being.

Recognizing the centrality of team-based care to diabetes management, our team has developed and implemented an enhanced primary care diabetes (EPCD) model across the internal medicine and family medicine practices of Mayo Clinic, first in Rochester, Minnesota and then across multiple rural and small urban sites in southeast Minnesota. This model is centered around the primary care team nurse, who partners with clinicians to oversee, enforce, and coordinate the diabetes management of patients paneled to those clinicians. Nurses proactively identify patients, engage other members of the healthcare team (eg, pharmacists, social workers, certified diabetes care and education specialists) as needed, and maintain a continuous relationship with each patient to help them achieve and maintain their goals. This model was not only effective at improving glycemic control and other indicators of diabetes care quality, but also improved nursing and clinician satisfaction. 

It is important to recognize that comprehensive diabetes care comprises both medical and nonmedical interventions that address the totality of the patient’s care needs and the circumstances that hinder optimal health. Increasingly, robust data are emerging in support of nonmedical interventions that target SDoH, including structural racism as a root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care and outcomes, with demonstrated evidence of improved health outcomes and narrowed health disparities.

It takes work, effort, and commitment to manage diabetes. But a team-based approach allows players on all sides to win. 

Those of us who treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) daily have long recognized a disturbing irony: diabetes is a disease whose management requires consistency in approach and constancy in delivery, but it is most prevalent among those whose lives often allow little to no time for either. 

In our clinic, many patients with diabetes are struggling, in some way, to incorporate diabetes management into their daily lives. They are juggling multiple jobs and family responsibilities; they are working jobs with inconsistent access to food or refrigeration (such as farming, service industry work, and others); and many—even those with insurance—are struggling to afford their insulin and non insulin medications, insulin administration supplies, and glucose testing equipment.

Studies show how stress deleteriously affects this disease. The body does not deal well with these frequent and persistent stressors; higher cortisol levels result in higher blood glucose levels, increased systemic inflammation, and other drivers of both diabetes and its complications; all have been extensively documented. 

What has been frustrating for our clinical community is knowing that since the early 2000s, new diabetes medications and technologies have been available that can make a difference in our patients’ lives, but for various reasons, they have not been well adopted, particularly among patients most likely to benefit from them. Consequently, we have not consistently seen meaningfully reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels or reduced rates of acute or chronic diabetes complications. Therapeutic inertia exists at the patient, systemic, and physician levels. 

Many of the new glucose-lowering medications can also improve cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes with low risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain. Diabetes technologies like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have been demonstrated in clinical trials to improve A1c and reduce hypoglycemia risk. But the reality is that clinicians are seeing an increasing number of patients with high A1c, with hypoglycemia, with severe hyperglycemia, and with long-term diabetes complications. 

If these advancements are supposed to improve health outcomes, why are patient, community, and population health not improving? Why are some patients not receiving the care they need, while others get extra services that do not improve their health and may even harm them?

These advancements also create new questions for clinicians. At what point in the disease course should existing medications be ramped up, ramped down, or changed? Which patient characteristics or comorbidities allow or do not allow these changes?  When should we use technologies or when does their burden outweigh their potential benefits? What resources and support systems do our patients need to live well with their disease and how can these be procured?

Herein lies the problem: Diabetes is a dynamic disease that needs to be handled in a dynamic way, and that has not universally—or even frequently—occurred. Management must be a team endeavor, meaning that both patient and clinician must be proactive in diabetes management. It has been our experience, demonstrated in our work and in other studies, that success relies on a robust and comprehensive primary care system whose team members—physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, certified diabetes care and education specialists, social workers, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians—are all resilient and motivated to tackle one of the most complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional chronic health conditions in our practice.

Proactivity also includes consistent monitoring, learning from successes and failures, and public reporting. For the patient, proactive involvement generally means self-care multiple times a day.    

Let us now discuss the evidence that prompted our team’s proactive approach to caring for people living with diabetes.

Gauges and perspective

The prevalence of T2D in this country stands at 11.3% within the adult population. Between 2015 and 2020, death from diabetes increased by 27%.

For years, the research community has documented the wide range of socioeconomic factors that increase the risk for developing T2D and that, once developed, make it more difficult for patients to manage their disease and achieve optimal health outcomes that are possible with available medications and technologies. 

In 2019, Kazemian et al published work that examined the indicators of diabetes management progress (eg, A1c levels, cholesterol levels) of 1742 individuals, from 2005 to 2016. Just 23% to 25% of these patients achieved all goals, even though, during the study period, numerous medications were approved to manage disease better. Arguably, these should have improved the all-goal findings in the study. 

The first injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) was approved in 2005; between 2013 and 2016, the FDA also approved 4 sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Both medication classes can safely and effectively lower A1c with no weight gain and low risk for hypoglycemia. Over the past 4 years, a robust body of evidence has emerged to show that GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors not only lower A1c, but also reduce the likelihood of death from cardiovascular and kidney diseases. SGLT2 inhibitors are better at saving lives from hypertensive heart failure while the GLP-1 RAs are more protective from atherosclerotic cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, as compared with placebo. Yet, these medications have not been, and continue not to be, regularly prescribed. In 1 study, the authors found that the rate of use for SGLT2 inhibitors was 3.8% in 2015 and 11.9% in 2019.

But there are several other reasons that patients do not receive these medicines.

Insurance

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of  382,574 adults between 58 and 66 years of age, insured by either a Medicare Advantage plan or commercial insurance, and compared treatment initiation of the 3 most common brand-name, second-line diabetes medications (as opposed to generic sulfonylureas), between 2016 and 2019. The rate of initiation was universally lower for Medicare Advantage members vs commercially insured individuals. 

While the rates of initiation of GLP-1 RAs, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increased between 2016 and 2019, rates were significantly higher among patients with commercial insurance. Specifically, GLP-1 RA initiation increased from 2.1% to 20.0% among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.5% to 11.4% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. SGLT2 inhibitor initiation increased from 2.7% to 18.2% with commercial insurance and from 1.57% to 8.51% with Medicare Advantage. DPP-4 inhibitor initiation increased from 3.3% to 11.7% with commercial insurance and from 2.44% to 7.68% with Medicare Advantage. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating one of these 3 medications with Medicare Advantage as compared with commercial insurance ranged from 0.28 to 0.70 for GLP-1 RAs; from 0.21 to 0.57 for SGLT2 inhibitors; and from 0.37 to 0.73 for DPP-4 inhibitors. 

We also looked at the initiation of these medications in individuals with cardiorenal comorbidities. In many cases, a drug was prescribed indiscriminately. A patient who would benefit from a GLP-1 RA because of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or kidney disease was less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 RA than a medication like a DPP-4 inhibitor, which usually has the same formulary tier/class but does not have any of the cardiovascular or kidney benefits. Likewise, in those with heart failure or kidney disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor would have been the appropriate choice, but these patients were too often started on a DPP-4 inhibitor, which is not advised for those with heart failure and does provide kidney benefits. 

Last year, Tummalapalli et al, in their evaluation of 4135 US health plans, including commercial- or employer-based, Medicare, Medicaid, and other public health plans, identified multiple barriers to accessing SGLT2 inhibitor medications. While all plans included at least 1 SGLT2 inhibitor on their formularies, they restricted access in other ways. Prior authorizations were required by nearly half of Medicaid plans and nearly 40% of other public plans such as the Veterans Health Administration. Medicare and other public plans commonly imposed quantity limits on fills. Commercial plans frequently (up to 40%) required step therapy (use or failure of a generic diabetes medication) before approval. Copayments were also high in commercial plans, Medicare, and others. 

The need for prior authorizations dominates attempts to prescribe. Centene Corporation, for example, which manages plans for private and public payers, will not approve use of an SGLT2 inhibitor until the patient fails for 3 consecutive months on a prior treatment, has established cardiovascular disease or diabetic nephropathy, or has multiple cardiovascular risk factors. These comorbidities must be documented and verified, and the prior authorizations must be completed, often resulting in substantial administrative burden to clinicians. No wonder many, especially in primary care, may be wary of prescribing drugs that come with a paperwork trail and hours spent on documentation and insurance appeals, rather than on patient care.

The same can be said for prescribing a GLP-1 RA. United Healthcare’s Oxford Benefit Management requires that clinicians show a “history of suboptimal response, contraindication, or intolerance to metformin” before prescribing any of the 8 GLP-1 RAs. 

The average retail cost of 30 empagliflozin tablets, a once-daily medication, is $752. During the pandemic, 24% of the 5000 patients surveyed in an American Diabetes Association (ADA) poll used their stimulus check, relied on loans, or spent savings to pay for diabetes care. GLP-1 RA medications are even more expensive.  Depending on the patient’s pharmacy benefits, they may have to pay a substantial coinsurance out of pocket even after the annual deductible is met, creating financial barriers to starting and continuing recommended, evidence-based medications. Even if patients do get the recommended medications, they may be forced to ration other aspects of their lives, including other medications, food, and other necessities.

There are other important barriers to optimal utilization of evidence-based therapies, stemming from the fundamental social determinants of health: low income, low education level, and living in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood.  

Social Determinants of Health

Diabetes prevalence is higher in patients experiencing socioeconomic and other structural barriers to health and health care. Fundamentally, 1 study showed that prevalence of diabetes was 1.4 times higher among people living on less than $15,000 a year, as opposed to those earning at least $50,000 a year. 

The risk of diabetes complications is also higher in individuals experiencing food or housing insecurity, those who have low income or education level, and residents in rural and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods. Importantly, the same patient populations are also less likely to receive timely evidence-based care, contributing to and worsening health disparities. Despite their prevalence and importance, social determinants of health (SDoH) are not routinely recognized or discussed during clinical encounters, such that improving diabetes care and health outcomes is predicated on developing a system to screen for, recognize, and address the wide range of barriers faced by our patients. If a patient cannot afford a new medication or get to the clinic on a regular basis, lacks access to healthy food, or does not have time for diabetes self-management education or to focus on their health, then their well-being will suffer.

Many of these SDoH disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority populations as the direct result of longstanding and deeply embedded systems, policies, and laws that underlie disparities in diabetes incidence, prevalence, management, and outcomes. As such, structural racism is increasingly recognized as a root cause of health disparities in diabetes and other chronic health conditions.

Proactive strategies

Since reactive care has not and cannot provide patients with the help they need and deserve, many in the diabetes care community have turned to proactive, team-based care. The Chronic Care Model, established in the 1990s, stresses decision-making support, strong team organization and delivery system design, and the wherewithal to monitor progress continually. Research has shown that the best results for patients stem from a multidisciplinary, data-driven, and proactive approach to identifying and meeting the totality of patient care needs. 

The ADA stresses the importance of comprehensive, team-based care for successful management of diabetes. This includes expanding the role of teams to implement evidence-based diabetes care, using electronic health record tools to support timely and guideline-recommended delivery of services, empowering and educating patients and caregivers, eliciting and addressing financial and psychosocial barriers to care, and identifying, developing, and engaging community resources to support better health and well-being.

Recognizing the centrality of team-based care to diabetes management, our team has developed and implemented an enhanced primary care diabetes (EPCD) model across the internal medicine and family medicine practices of Mayo Clinic, first in Rochester, Minnesota and then across multiple rural and small urban sites in southeast Minnesota. This model is centered around the primary care team nurse, who partners with clinicians to oversee, enforce, and coordinate the diabetes management of patients paneled to those clinicians. Nurses proactively identify patients, engage other members of the healthcare team (eg, pharmacists, social workers, certified diabetes care and education specialists) as needed, and maintain a continuous relationship with each patient to help them achieve and maintain their goals. This model was not only effective at improving glycemic control and other indicators of diabetes care quality, but also improved nursing and clinician satisfaction. 

It is important to recognize that comprehensive diabetes care comprises both medical and nonmedical interventions that address the totality of the patient’s care needs and the circumstances that hinder optimal health. Increasingly, robust data are emerging in support of nonmedical interventions that target SDoH, including structural racism as a root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care and outcomes, with demonstrated evidence of improved health outcomes and narrowed health disparities.

It takes work, effort, and commitment to manage diabetes. But a team-based approach allows players on all sides to win. 

Those of us who treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) daily have long recognized a disturbing irony: diabetes is a disease whose management requires consistency in approach and constancy in delivery, but it is most prevalent among those whose lives often allow little to no time for either. 

In our clinic, many patients with diabetes are struggling, in some way, to incorporate diabetes management into their daily lives. They are juggling multiple jobs and family responsibilities; they are working jobs with inconsistent access to food or refrigeration (such as farming, service industry work, and others); and many—even those with insurance—are struggling to afford their insulin and non insulin medications, insulin administration supplies, and glucose testing equipment.

Studies show how stress deleteriously affects this disease. The body does not deal well with these frequent and persistent stressors; higher cortisol levels result in higher blood glucose levels, increased systemic inflammation, and other drivers of both diabetes and its complications; all have been extensively documented. 

What has been frustrating for our clinical community is knowing that since the early 2000s, new diabetes medications and technologies have been available that can make a difference in our patients’ lives, but for various reasons, they have not been well adopted, particularly among patients most likely to benefit from them. Consequently, we have not consistently seen meaningfully reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c) levels or reduced rates of acute or chronic diabetes complications. Therapeutic inertia exists at the patient, systemic, and physician levels. 

Many of the new glucose-lowering medications can also improve cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes with low risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain. Diabetes technologies like insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have been demonstrated in clinical trials to improve A1c and reduce hypoglycemia risk. But the reality is that clinicians are seeing an increasing number of patients with high A1c, with hypoglycemia, with severe hyperglycemia, and with long-term diabetes complications. 

If these advancements are supposed to improve health outcomes, why are patient, community, and population health not improving? Why are some patients not receiving the care they need, while others get extra services that do not improve their health and may even harm them?

These advancements also create new questions for clinicians. At what point in the disease course should existing medications be ramped up, ramped down, or changed? Which patient characteristics or comorbidities allow or do not allow these changes?  When should we use technologies or when does their burden outweigh their potential benefits? What resources and support systems do our patients need to live well with their disease and how can these be procured?

Herein lies the problem: Diabetes is a dynamic disease that needs to be handled in a dynamic way, and that has not universally—or even frequently—occurred. Management must be a team endeavor, meaning that both patient and clinician must be proactive in diabetes management. It has been our experience, demonstrated in our work and in other studies, that success relies on a robust and comprehensive primary care system whose team members—physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, certified diabetes care and education specialists, social workers, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians—are all resilient and motivated to tackle one of the most complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional chronic health conditions in our practice.

Proactivity also includes consistent monitoring, learning from successes and failures, and public reporting. For the patient, proactive involvement generally means self-care multiple times a day.    

Let us now discuss the evidence that prompted our team’s proactive approach to caring for people living with diabetes.

Gauges and perspective

The prevalence of T2D in this country stands at 11.3% within the adult population. Between 2015 and 2020, death from diabetes increased by 27%.

For years, the research community has documented the wide range of socioeconomic factors that increase the risk for developing T2D and that, once developed, make it more difficult for patients to manage their disease and achieve optimal health outcomes that are possible with available medications and technologies. 

In 2019, Kazemian et al published work that examined the indicators of diabetes management progress (eg, A1c levels, cholesterol levels) of 1742 individuals, from 2005 to 2016. Just 23% to 25% of these patients achieved all goals, even though, during the study period, numerous medications were approved to manage disease better. Arguably, these should have improved the all-goal findings in the study. 

The first injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) was approved in 2005; between 2013 and 2016, the FDA also approved 4 sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Both medication classes can safely and effectively lower A1c with no weight gain and low risk for hypoglycemia. Over the past 4 years, a robust body of evidence has emerged to show that GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors not only lower A1c, but also reduce the likelihood of death from cardiovascular and kidney diseases. SGLT2 inhibitors are better at saving lives from hypertensive heart failure while the GLP-1 RAs are more protective from atherosclerotic cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and stroke, as compared with placebo. Yet, these medications have not been, and continue not to be, regularly prescribed. In 1 study, the authors found that the rate of use for SGLT2 inhibitors was 3.8% in 2015 and 11.9% in 2019.

But there are several other reasons that patients do not receive these medicines.

Insurance

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of  382,574 adults between 58 and 66 years of age, insured by either a Medicare Advantage plan or commercial insurance, and compared treatment initiation of the 3 most common brand-name, second-line diabetes medications (as opposed to generic sulfonylureas), between 2016 and 2019. The rate of initiation was universally lower for Medicare Advantage members vs commercially insured individuals. 

While the rates of initiation of GLP-1 RAs, SGLT2 inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increased between 2016 and 2019, rates were significantly higher among patients with commercial insurance. Specifically, GLP-1 RA initiation increased from 2.1% to 20.0% among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.5% to 11.4% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. SGLT2 inhibitor initiation increased from 2.7% to 18.2% with commercial insurance and from 1.57% to 8.51% with Medicare Advantage. DPP-4 inhibitor initiation increased from 3.3% to 11.7% with commercial insurance and from 2.44% to 7.68% with Medicare Advantage. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating one of these 3 medications with Medicare Advantage as compared with commercial insurance ranged from 0.28 to 0.70 for GLP-1 RAs; from 0.21 to 0.57 for SGLT2 inhibitors; and from 0.37 to 0.73 for DPP-4 inhibitors. 

We also looked at the initiation of these medications in individuals with cardiorenal comorbidities. In many cases, a drug was prescribed indiscriminately. A patient who would benefit from a GLP-1 RA because of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or kidney disease was less likely to be prescribed a GLP-1 RA than a medication like a DPP-4 inhibitor, which usually has the same formulary tier/class but does not have any of the cardiovascular or kidney benefits. Likewise, in those with heart failure or kidney disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor would have been the appropriate choice, but these patients were too often started on a DPP-4 inhibitor, which is not advised for those with heart failure and does provide kidney benefits. 

Last year, Tummalapalli et al, in their evaluation of 4135 US health plans, including commercial- or employer-based, Medicare, Medicaid, and other public health plans, identified multiple barriers to accessing SGLT2 inhibitor medications. While all plans included at least 1 SGLT2 inhibitor on their formularies, they restricted access in other ways. Prior authorizations were required by nearly half of Medicaid plans and nearly 40% of other public plans such as the Veterans Health Administration. Medicare and other public plans commonly imposed quantity limits on fills. Commercial plans frequently (up to 40%) required step therapy (use or failure of a generic diabetes medication) before approval. Copayments were also high in commercial plans, Medicare, and others. 

The need for prior authorizations dominates attempts to prescribe. Centene Corporation, for example, which manages plans for private and public payers, will not approve use of an SGLT2 inhibitor until the patient fails for 3 consecutive months on a prior treatment, has established cardiovascular disease or diabetic nephropathy, or has multiple cardiovascular risk factors. These comorbidities must be documented and verified, and the prior authorizations must be completed, often resulting in substantial administrative burden to clinicians. No wonder many, especially in primary care, may be wary of prescribing drugs that come with a paperwork trail and hours spent on documentation and insurance appeals, rather than on patient care.

The same can be said for prescribing a GLP-1 RA. United Healthcare’s Oxford Benefit Management requires that clinicians show a “history of suboptimal response, contraindication, or intolerance to metformin” before prescribing any of the 8 GLP-1 RAs. 

The average retail cost of 30 empagliflozin tablets, a once-daily medication, is $752. During the pandemic, 24% of the 5000 patients surveyed in an American Diabetes Association (ADA) poll used their stimulus check, relied on loans, or spent savings to pay for diabetes care. GLP-1 RA medications are even more expensive.  Depending on the patient’s pharmacy benefits, they may have to pay a substantial coinsurance out of pocket even after the annual deductible is met, creating financial barriers to starting and continuing recommended, evidence-based medications. Even if patients do get the recommended medications, they may be forced to ration other aspects of their lives, including other medications, food, and other necessities.

There are other important barriers to optimal utilization of evidence-based therapies, stemming from the fundamental social determinants of health: low income, low education level, and living in a socioeconomically deprived neighborhood.  

Social Determinants of Health

Diabetes prevalence is higher in patients experiencing socioeconomic and other structural barriers to health and health care. Fundamentally, 1 study showed that prevalence of diabetes was 1.4 times higher among people living on less than $15,000 a year, as opposed to those earning at least $50,000 a year. 

The risk of diabetes complications is also higher in individuals experiencing food or housing insecurity, those who have low income or education level, and residents in rural and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods. Importantly, the same patient populations are also less likely to receive timely evidence-based care, contributing to and worsening health disparities. Despite their prevalence and importance, social determinants of health (SDoH) are not routinely recognized or discussed during clinical encounters, such that improving diabetes care and health outcomes is predicated on developing a system to screen for, recognize, and address the wide range of barriers faced by our patients. If a patient cannot afford a new medication or get to the clinic on a regular basis, lacks access to healthy food, or does not have time for diabetes self-management education or to focus on their health, then their well-being will suffer.

Many of these SDoH disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority populations as the direct result of longstanding and deeply embedded systems, policies, and laws that underlie disparities in diabetes incidence, prevalence, management, and outcomes. As such, structural racism is increasingly recognized as a root cause of health disparities in diabetes and other chronic health conditions.

Proactive strategies

Since reactive care has not and cannot provide patients with the help they need and deserve, many in the diabetes care community have turned to proactive, team-based care. The Chronic Care Model, established in the 1990s, stresses decision-making support, strong team organization and delivery system design, and the wherewithal to monitor progress continually. Research has shown that the best results for patients stem from a multidisciplinary, data-driven, and proactive approach to identifying and meeting the totality of patient care needs. 

The ADA stresses the importance of comprehensive, team-based care for successful management of diabetes. This includes expanding the role of teams to implement evidence-based diabetes care, using electronic health record tools to support timely and guideline-recommended delivery of services, empowering and educating patients and caregivers, eliciting and addressing financial and psychosocial barriers to care, and identifying, developing, and engaging community resources to support better health and well-being.

Recognizing the centrality of team-based care to diabetes management, our team has developed and implemented an enhanced primary care diabetes (EPCD) model across the internal medicine and family medicine practices of Mayo Clinic, first in Rochester, Minnesota and then across multiple rural and small urban sites in southeast Minnesota. This model is centered around the primary care team nurse, who partners with clinicians to oversee, enforce, and coordinate the diabetes management of patients paneled to those clinicians. Nurses proactively identify patients, engage other members of the healthcare team (eg, pharmacists, social workers, certified diabetes care and education specialists) as needed, and maintain a continuous relationship with each patient to help them achieve and maintain their goals. This model was not only effective at improving glycemic control and other indicators of diabetes care quality, but also improved nursing and clinician satisfaction. 

It is important to recognize that comprehensive diabetes care comprises both medical and nonmedical interventions that address the totality of the patient’s care needs and the circumstances that hinder optimal health. Increasingly, robust data are emerging in support of nonmedical interventions that target SDoH, including structural racism as a root cause of racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care and outcomes, with demonstrated evidence of improved health outcomes and narrowed health disparities.

It takes work, effort, and commitment to manage diabetes. But a team-based approach allows players on all sides to win. 

U.S. children appear to be failing an important test – of their hearts, not minds.

New research from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago shows that heart health is a concern for many long before adulthood because fewer than one-third of children aged 2-19 years scored highly on the American Heart Association’s checklist for ideal cardiovascular fitness.

“This study gives us a new baseline for children’s heart health in the United States,” said Amanda Perak, MD, pediatric cardiologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Perak and colleagues published their findings in the journal Circulation.

The researchers identified 9888 children who completed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2013 and 2018. They analyzed the available data using the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 – a 100-point assessment of eight predictors for measuring heart health, including sleep, nicotine exposure, and blood glucose.

Data for only three metrics were available for all children in the study: diet, physical activity, and body mass index. As children aged, more metrics were averaged to obtain the overall cardiovascular health score. For instance, cholesterol/lipid levels become available at age 6 years, and blood pressure can be measured starting at age 8 years.

Only 2.2% of children in the study had optimal heart health, according to the Life’s Essential 8 scoring system, which spans poor (0-49), moderate (50-79), and high (80-100). Fewer than one in three (29.1%) overall had high scores, and scores worsened with age.

In the 2- to 5-year age group, over half (56.5%) of the children had good heart health. However, only one-third (33.5%) of 6- to 11-year-olds scored highly. Meanwhile, only 14% of adolescents had good heart scores, Dr. Perak’s group found.

Heart health scores based on diet were lowest for every age group. In the youngest age group, the average cardiovascular health (CVH) score was about 61. In the 12- to 19-year age group, however, the average CVH score decreased to 28.5, the lowest measured score for any group in the study.

With such worrisome diet scores for the 12- to 19-year-old group, public health policies need to focus on changes, like removing sugar-sweetened beverage options from schools, according to Joseph Mahgerefteh, MD, director of preventive cardiology at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center, New York. He added that parents and their children also have a role to play.

“Some of our teenagers forget they can drink water when they are thirsty, and it is not necessary to drink sugar-sweetened beverages for thirst,” Dr. Mahgerefteh, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Fresh vegetable intake is so low to a degree that some of our patients refuse to have any type of vegetable in their diet.”

“As a physician community caring for these patients, we need to be much more aggressive with our counseling and referral of these patients,” added Barry Love, MD, director of the congenital cardiac catheterization program at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center. “These youngsters will inevitably encounter the effect of these conditions – coronary artery disease and stroke – at a much earlier adult age.”

Dr. Perak, Dr. Mahgerefteh, and Dr. Love reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

U.S. children appear to be failing an important test – of their hearts, not minds.

New research from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago shows that heart health is a concern for many long before adulthood because fewer than one-third of children aged 2-19 years scored highly on the American Heart Association’s checklist for ideal cardiovascular fitness.

“This study gives us a new baseline for children’s heart health in the United States,” said Amanda Perak, MD, pediatric cardiologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Perak and colleagues published their findings in the journal Circulation.

The researchers identified 9888 children who completed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2013 and 2018. They analyzed the available data using the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 – a 100-point assessment of eight predictors for measuring heart health, including sleep, nicotine exposure, and blood glucose.

Data for only three metrics were available for all children in the study: diet, physical activity, and body mass index. As children aged, more metrics were averaged to obtain the overall cardiovascular health score. For instance, cholesterol/lipid levels become available at age 6 years, and blood pressure can be measured starting at age 8 years.

Only 2.2% of children in the study had optimal heart health, according to the Life’s Essential 8 scoring system, which spans poor (0-49), moderate (50-79), and high (80-100). Fewer than one in three (29.1%) overall had high scores, and scores worsened with age.

In the 2- to 5-year age group, over half (56.5%) of the children had good heart health. However, only one-third (33.5%) of 6- to 11-year-olds scored highly. Meanwhile, only 14% of adolescents had good heart scores, Dr. Perak’s group found.

Heart health scores based on diet were lowest for every age group. In the youngest age group, the average cardiovascular health (CVH) score was about 61. In the 12- to 19-year age group, however, the average CVH score decreased to 28.5, the lowest measured score for any group in the study.

With such worrisome diet scores for the 12- to 19-year-old group, public health policies need to focus on changes, like removing sugar-sweetened beverage options from schools, according to Joseph Mahgerefteh, MD, director of preventive cardiology at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center, New York. He added that parents and their children also have a role to play.

“Some of our teenagers forget they can drink water when they are thirsty, and it is not necessary to drink sugar-sweetened beverages for thirst,” Dr. Mahgerefteh, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Fresh vegetable intake is so low to a degree that some of our patients refuse to have any type of vegetable in their diet.”

“As a physician community caring for these patients, we need to be much more aggressive with our counseling and referral of these patients,” added Barry Love, MD, director of the congenital cardiac catheterization program at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center. “These youngsters will inevitably encounter the effect of these conditions – coronary artery disease and stroke – at a much earlier adult age.”

Dr. Perak, Dr. Mahgerefteh, and Dr. Love reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

U.S. children appear to be failing an important test – of their hearts, not minds.

New research from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago shows that heart health is a concern for many long before adulthood because fewer than one-third of children aged 2-19 years scored highly on the American Heart Association’s checklist for ideal cardiovascular fitness.

“This study gives us a new baseline for children’s heart health in the United States,” said Amanda Perak, MD, pediatric cardiologist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and a coauthor of the study.

Dr. Perak and colleagues published their findings in the journal Circulation.

The researchers identified 9888 children who completed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2013 and 2018. They analyzed the available data using the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 – a 100-point assessment of eight predictors for measuring heart health, including sleep, nicotine exposure, and blood glucose.

Data for only three metrics were available for all children in the study: diet, physical activity, and body mass index. As children aged, more metrics were averaged to obtain the overall cardiovascular health score. For instance, cholesterol/lipid levels become available at age 6 years, and blood pressure can be measured starting at age 8 years.

Only 2.2% of children in the study had optimal heart health, according to the Life’s Essential 8 scoring system, which spans poor (0-49), moderate (50-79), and high (80-100). Fewer than one in three (29.1%) overall had high scores, and scores worsened with age.

In the 2- to 5-year age group, over half (56.5%) of the children had good heart health. However, only one-third (33.5%) of 6- to 11-year-olds scored highly. Meanwhile, only 14% of adolescents had good heart scores, Dr. Perak’s group found.

Heart health scores based on diet were lowest for every age group. In the youngest age group, the average cardiovascular health (CVH) score was about 61. In the 12- to 19-year age group, however, the average CVH score decreased to 28.5, the lowest measured score for any group in the study.

With such worrisome diet scores for the 12- to 19-year-old group, public health policies need to focus on changes, like removing sugar-sweetened beverage options from schools, according to Joseph Mahgerefteh, MD, director of preventive cardiology at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center, New York. He added that parents and their children also have a role to play.

“Some of our teenagers forget they can drink water when they are thirsty, and it is not necessary to drink sugar-sweetened beverages for thirst,” Dr. Mahgerefteh, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Fresh vegetable intake is so low to a degree that some of our patients refuse to have any type of vegetable in their diet.”

“As a physician community caring for these patients, we need to be much more aggressive with our counseling and referral of these patients,” added Barry Love, MD, director of the congenital cardiac catheterization program at the Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Heart Center. “These youngsters will inevitably encounter the effect of these conditions – coronary artery disease and stroke – at a much earlier adult age.”

Dr. Perak, Dr. Mahgerefteh, and Dr. Love reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins was linked to a lower risk of developing a subtype of diabetes that occurs after acute pancreatitis, according to a new report.

The benefits of statins depended on the consistency of usage, with regular users having a lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes than irregular users. The results were similar with low, moderate, and high statin doses, as well as in cases of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis.

“About 15% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop diabetes mellitus in the next 5 years, and although we can monitor for it, we can’t do anything to prevent it,” Nikhil Thiruvengadam, MD, the lead study author and a gastroenterologist at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, told this news organization.

iStock/ThinkStock

“This could push you as a clinician to prescribe [a statin if you have a reason to] because it could provide two benefits instead of just one,” he said.

The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Steady use mattered, not dose

Patients with acute pancreatitis face at least a twofold increased risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, the study authors write. Although previous studies have shown that statins can lower the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis, they haven’t been studied for the prevention of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In a collaborative study with several other universities, Dr. Thiruvengadam and colleagues examined commercial insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics database to assess the impact of statins on 118,479 patients without preexisting diabetes admitted for a first episode of acute pancreatitis between 2008 and 2020.

They compared patients who consistently used statins with irregular users and nonusers. Regular statin usage was defined as patients who had statin prescriptions filled for at least 80% of the year prior to their acute pancreatitis diagnosis. The analysis included 9,048 patients (7.6%) who used statins regularly, 27,272 (23%) who used statins irregularly, and 82,159 (69.3%) nonusers.

With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the 5-year cumulative incidence of postpancreatitis diabetes was 7.5% among regular statin users and 12.7% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 42% lower risk of developing postpancreatitis diabetes, compared with nonusers. Irregular statin users had a 15% lower risk of postpancreatitis diabetes.

In addition, the 5-year cumulative incidence of insulin-dependent postpancreatitis diabetes was 2.4% among regular statin users and 6.6% among nonusers. Regular statin users had a 52% lower risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes as compared with nonusers.

Daily dosage didn’t demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship. That means high-dose statins may not be more effective in preventing diabetes as compared with lower doses, the study authors write.

Statin usage was effective across additional analyses, including sex, etiologies of pancreatitis, and in both mild and severe acute pancreatitis. According to the study authors, this suggests that a broad population of these patients may benefit from statins.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the variety of findings,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “We’re seeing strong signals, especially with consistency of usage.”
 

Ongoing studies

The results may seem paradoxical, the study authors write, given an epidemiologic association with a slight increase in new-onset diabetes with statin initiation. But, as other researchers have reported, postpancreatitis diabetes and type 2 diabetes have different clinical features and underlying pathophysiology. For example, patients with postpancreatitis diabetes have much higher rates of requiring insulin, hospitalization, and all-cause mortality, the study authors write.

In fact, postpancreatitis diabetes is thought to be driven by chronic low-grade inflammation attributable to interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Statins have been shown to reduce tumor necrosis factor–alpha secretion and the production of C-reactive protein in response to circulating interleukin-6 in hepatocytes, they write.

The results should inform long-term prospective studies of acute pancreatitis, the study authors write, as well as randomized controlled trials of statins.

In the meantime, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who see outpatients after hospitalization for acute pancreatitis may consider using statins, particularly in those who may have another possible indication for statin therapy, such as mild hyperlipidemia.

“There appears to be a low-dose benefit, which is another reason why providers may consider using statins, though it’s not for everyone with pancreatitis,” Dr. Thiruvengadam said. “This could be an exploratory pathway and suggested for use in the right setting.”

The Type 1 Diabetes in Acute Pancreatitis Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, is conducting an observational cohort study at more than a dozen locations across the country to investigate the incidence, etiology, and pathophysiology of diabetes after acute pancreatitis.

“Diabetes is surprisingly common after even a single attack of acute pancreatitis,” Chris Forsmark, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Florida, Gainesville, told this news organization.

Dr. Forsmark, who wasn’t involved with this study, is a member of T1DAPC and one of the principal investigators in Florida.

“The reduction of risk by 42% is quite substantial,” he said. “Like all such studies, there is risk of bias and confounding in determining the actual risk. Nonetheless, the results provide a strong reason for confirmation in other datasets and for further study.”

The study didn’t report funding support. Dr. Thiruvengadam and Dr. Forsmark report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Walking 10,000 steps per day may reduce the risk of death for those who have trouble regulating their blood sugar, according to the findings from a study of almost 1,700 American adults with prediabetes or diabetes.

Researchers from the University of Seville, Spain, evaluated U.S. adults with prediabetes and diabetes using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, collected between 2005 and 2006.

The findings were published this month in Diabetes Care.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Of the total, 1,194 adults had prediabetes, and 493 had diabetes. People with diabetes in the study were diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting blood glucose level higher than 126 mg/dL. People with prediabetes in the study were also diagnosed by a doctor or had a fasting glucose level from 100 to 125 mg/dL.

Over half (56%) of prediabetic adults were male (average age 55 years), and they took an average of 8,500 steps per day. Half (51%) of the diabetic adults were also male (average age 61 years), and they took fewer steps per day – about 6,300.

The people in the study wore an accelerometer on their waist to count their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol use, diet, and use of diabetes medications.

Over 9 years, 200 people with prediabetes and 138 with diabetes died. Based on those who survived after follow-up, walking nearly 10,000 steps per day was best for reducing the risk of death from any cause for people with prediabetes and diabetes.

But about 20% of people in the study were removed from the analysis because they had invalid accelerometry data. Adults who are healthy enough to walk 10,000 steps may have different rates of death from those who aren’t, according to the study authors, who called for more research to compare these two groups.

If 10,000 steps seem like a daunting task, talking to a doctor about finding a routine that works for your physical ability could be helpful, the study authors suggest.

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

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Young adults aged 15-34 years derive no significant health benefits from alcohol consumption, but moderate drinking may benefit the over-40 crowd, according to a new analysis.

The health risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are complex and remain a hot topic of debate. The data suggest that small amounts of alcohol may reduce the risk of certain health outcomes over time, but increase the risk of others, wrote Dana Bryazka, MS, a researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, in a paper published in the Lancet.

“The amount of alcohol that minimizes health loss is likely to depend on the distribution of underlying causes of disease burden in a given population. Since this distribution varies widely by geography, age, sex, and time, the level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest risk to health would depend on the age structure and disease composition of that population,” the researchers wrote.

“We estimate that 1.78 million people worldwide died due to alcohol use in 2020,” Ms. Bryazka said in an interview. “It is important that alcohol consumption guidelines and policies are updated to minimize this harm, particularly in the populations at greatest risk,” she said.  

“Existing alcohol consumption guidelines frequently vary by sex, with higher consumption thresholds set for males compared to females. Interestingly, with the currently available data we do not see evidence that risk of alcohol use varies by sex,” she noted.
 

Methods and results

In the study, the researchers conducted a systematic analysis of burden-weighted dose-response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes. They used disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for the years 1990-2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories. The data were analyzed by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15-95 years and older. The researchers estimated the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and nondrinker equivalent (NDE), meaning the amount of alcohol at which the health risk equals that of a nondrinker.

One standard drink was defined as 10 g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of red wine (100 mL or 3.4 fluid ounces) at 13% alcohol by volume, a can or bottle of beer (375 mL or 12 fluid ounces) at 3.5% alcohol by volume, or a shot of whiskey or other spirits (30 mL or 1.0 fluid ounces) at 40% alcohol by volume.

Overall, the TMREL was low regardless of age, sex, time, or geography, and varied from 0 to 1.87 standard drinks per day. However, it was lowest for males aged 15-39 years (0.136 drinks per day) and only slightly higher for females aged 15-39 (0.273), representing 1-2 tenths of a standard drink.

For adults aged 40 and older without any underlying health conditions, drinking a small amount of alcohol may provide some benefits, such as reducing the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the researchers noted. In general, for individuals aged 40-64 years, TMRELs ranged from about half a standard drink per day (0.527 drinks for males and 0.562 standard drinks per day for females) to almost two standard drinks (1.69 standard drinks per day for males and 1.82 for females). For those older than 65 years, the TMRELs represented just over 3 standard drinks per day (3.19 for males and 3.51 for females). For individuals aged 40 years and older, the distribution of disease burden varied by region, but was J-shaped across all regions, the researchers noted.

The researchers also found that those individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol were most likely to be aged 15-39 (59.1%) and male (76.9%).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and lack of data on drinking patterns, such as binge drinking, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the lack of data reflecting patterns of alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, and exclusion of outcomes often associated with alcohol use, such as depression, anxiety, and dementia, that might reduce estimates of TMREL and NDE.

However, the results add to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and health, the researchers said.

“The findings of this study support the development of tailored guidelines and recommendations on alcohol consumption by age and across regions and highlight that existing low consumption thresholds are too high for younger populations in all regions,” they concluded.
 

Consider individual factors when counseling patients

The takeaway message for primary care is that alcohol consumed in moderation can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, Ms. Bryazka noted. “However, it also increases the risk of many cancers, intentional and unintentional injuries, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis,” she said. “Of these health outcomes, young people are most likely to experience injuries, and as a result, we find that there are significant health risks associated with consuming alcohol for young people. Among older individuals, the relative proportions of these outcomes vary by geography, and so do the risks associated with consuming alcohol,” she explained.

“Importantly, our analysis was conducted at the population level; when evaluating risk at the individual level, it is also important to consider other factors such as the presence of comorbidities and interactions between alcohol and medications,” she emphasized.
 

Health and alcohol interaction is complicated

“These findings seemingly contradict a previous [Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study] estimate published in The Lancet, which emphasized that any alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations,” wrote Robyn Burton, PhD, and Nick Sheron, MD, both of King’s College, London, in an accompanying comment.

However, the novel methods of weighting relative risk curves according to levels of underlying disease drive the difference in results, along with disaggregated estimates by age, sex, and region, they said.

“Across most geographical regions in this latest analysis, injuries accounted for most alcohol-related harm in younger age groups. This led to a minimum risk level of zero, or very close to zero, among individuals aged 15-39 years across all geographical regions,” which is lower than the level for older adults because of the shift in alcohol-related disease burden towards cardiovascular disease and cancers, they said. “This highlights the need to consider existing rates of disease in a population when trying to determine the total harm posed by alcohol,” the commentators wrote.

In an additional commentary, Tony Rao, MD, a visiting clinical research fellow in psychiatry at King’s College, London, noted that “the elephant in the room with this study is the interpretation of risk based on outcomes for cardiovascular disease – particularly in older people. We know that any purported health benefits from alcohol on the heart and circulation are balanced out by the increased risk from other conditions such as cancer, liver disease, and mental disorders such as depression and dementia,” Dr. Rao said. “If we are to simply draw the conclusion that older people should continue or start drinking small amounts because it protects against diseases affecting heart and circulation – which still remains controversial – other lifestyle changes or the use of drugs targeted at individual cardiovascular disorders seem like a less harmful way of improving health and wellbeing.”

Data can guide clinical practice

No previous study has examined the effect of the theoretical minimum risk of alcohol consumption by geography, age, sex, and time in the context of background disease rates, said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.

“This study enabled the researchers to quantify the proportion of the population that consumed alcohol in amounts that exceeded the thresholds by location, age, sex, and year, and this can serve as a guide in our efforts to target the control of alcohol intake by individuals,” said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc. He also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.

The first take-home message for clinicians is that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have deleterious effects on the health of patients, and patients should be advised accordingly based on the prevalence of diseases in that community and geographic area, Dr. Deep said. “Secondly, clinicians should also consider the risk of alcohol consumption on all forms of health impacts in a given population rather than just focusing on alcohol-related health conditions,” he added.

“This study provides us with the data to tailor our efforts in educating the clinicians and the public about the relationship between alcohol consumption and disease outcomes based on the observed disease rates in each population,” Dr. Deep explained. “The data should provide another reason for physicians to advise their younger patients, especially the younger males, to avoid or minimize alcohol use,” he said. The data also can help clinicians formulate public health messaging and community education to reduce harmful alcohol use, he added.

As for additional research, Dr. Deep said he would like to see data on the difference in the health-related effects of alcohol in binge-drinkers vs. those who regularly consume alcohol on a daily basis. “It would probably also be helpful to figure out what type of alcohol is being studied and the quality of the alcohol,” he said.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Ms. Bryazka and colleagues had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Burton disclosed serving as a consultant to the World Health Organization European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Dr. Sheron had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.

The study was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cost-saving, stepwise approach to treating diabetic macular edema was as effective and at least as safe as what’s been the standard approach, which jumps straight to the costlier treatment, in a head-to-head, multicenter, U.S. randomized trial of the two regimens that included 312 eyes in 270 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The findings validate a treatment regimen for diabetic macular edema that’s already common in U.S. practice based on requirements by many health insurance providers because of the money it saves.

The step-therapy approach studied involves starting off-label treatment with the relatively inexpensive agent bevacizumab (Avastin), followed by a switch to the much pricier aflibercept (Eylea) when patients don’t adequately respond, following a prespecified algorithm that applies four criteria to determine when patients need to change agents.

These new findings build on a 2016 study that compared aflibercept monotherapy with bevacizumab monotherapy and showed that after 2 years of treatment aflibercept produced clearly better outcomes.

The new trial findings “are particularly relevant given the increasing frequency of insurers mandating step therapy with bevacizumab before the use of other drugs” such as aflibercept, noted Chirag D. Jhaveri, MD, and colleagues in the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Opportunity for ‘substantial cost reductions’

Jhaveri, a retina surgeon in Austin, Texas, and associates note that, based on Medicare reimbursement rates of $1,830 for a single dose of aflibercept and $70 for one dose of bevacizumab, starting treatment with bevacizumab could produce “substantial cost reductions for the health care system.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial agree. Step therapy that starts with bevacizumab would probably result in “substantial” cost savings, and the findings document “similar outcomes” from the two tested regimens based on improvements in visual acuity and changes in the thickness measurement of the central retina during the 2-year trial, write David C. Musch, PhD, and Emily Y. Chew, MD.

Dr. Musch, a professor and ophthalmology epidemiologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Dr. Chew, director of the Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Md., also laud the “rigorous” study for its design and conduct that was “beyond reproach,” and for producing evidence that “applies well to clinical practice.”

The only potential drawback to the step-therapy approach, they write, is that people with diabetes often have “numerous coexisting conditions that make it more difficult for them to adhere to frequent follow-up visits,” a key element of the tested step-care protocol, which mandated follow-up visits every 4 weeks during the first year and every 4-16 weeks during the second year.
 

312 eyes of 270 patients

The new trial, organized by the DRCR Retinal Network and the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla., ran at 54 U.S. sites from December 2017 to November 2019. The study randomized 158 eyes in 137 patients to aflibercept monotherapy, and 154 eyes in 133 patients to the step-care regimen (both eyes were treated in several patients in each group, with each eye receiving a different regimen). Participants were around 60 years old, 48% were women, and 95% had type 2 diabetes.

To be eligible for enrollment, patients had at least one eye with a best-corrected visual-acuity letter score of 24-69 on an Electronic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart (ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating better visual acuity), which corresponds to Snellen chart values of 20/320-20/50, readings that encompass most patients with diabetic macular edema, noted study authors Adam R. Glassman and Jennifer K. Sun, MD, in an interview.

“Very few patients with diabetic macular edema have vision due to this alone that is worse than 20/320, which meets criteria for legal blindness,” said Dr. Glassman, who is executive director of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, and Dr. Sun, who is chief of the center for clinical eye research and trials at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and chair of the DRCR Retinal Network.

The primary outcome was time-averaged change in visual-acuity letter score from baseline to 2 years, which improved by an average of 15.0 letters in the aflibercept monotherapy group and an average of 14.0 letters in the step-therapy group, an adjusted difference of 0.8 letters, which was not significant. An improvement from baseline of at least 15 letters occurred in 53% of the eyes in the aflibercept monotherapy group and in 58% of those who had step therapy, and 77% of eyes in both groups had improvements of at least 10 letters.  

Central retinal thickness dropped from baseline by an average of 192 mcm with aflibercept monotherapy and 198 mcm with step therapy. The average number of total treatments (by intravitreous injection) was 14.6 in the aflibercept monotherapy group and 16.1 in the step-therapy group. After the first 24 weeks of the study, 39% of eyes in the step-therapy group had switched from bevacizumab to aflibercept injections; after 1 year, 60% of eyes had switched; and by study end, after 2 years, 70% had changed.

The bevacizumab-first group also showed at least comparable if not better safety, with similar rates of prespecified ocular events in both groups, but with a significantly lower rate of serious systemic adverse events, which occurred in 52% of the eyes treated with aflibercept only and 36% of eyes that began treatment on bevacizumab. Serious systemic adverse events occurred in 43% of patients who had two eyes treated as part of the trial.
 

‘Bevacizumab first was noninferior’

The team that designed the trial opted for a superiority design rather than a noninferiority trial and powered the study based on the presumption that aflibercept monotherapy would prove superior, said Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun. “We feel that the clinical interpretation of these results will be similar to the interpretation if we had conducted a noninferiority study, and we found that bevacizumab first was noninferior to aflibercept monotherapy,” they maintained in an interview.

Dr. Glassman and Dr. Sun said they and their coauthors are now analyzing the results to try to find patient characteristics that could identify eyes most likely to respond to the bevacizumab-first approach. “It would be clinically valuable” to use the results to identify characteristics that could help guide clinicians’ treatment approach and enhance patient counseling, they said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jhaveri has reported being a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, and Regenxbio. Dr. Glassman has reported receiving grants from Genentech and Regeneron. Dr. Sun has reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, KalVista, Optovue, and Physical Sciences, grants and travel support from Novartis and Novo Nordisk, travel support from Merck, writing support from Genentech, and equipment supplied by Adaptive Sensory and Boston Micromachines. Dr. Musch and Dr. Chew have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Vertex Pharmaceuticals has acquired ViaCyte, bringing together two of the leading biotechnology companies developing stem cell–derived islet cell replacement therapies for type 1 diabetes.

The $320 million cash purchase “will accelerate our goal of transforming, if not curing, type 1 diabetes by expanding our capabilities and bringing additional tools, technologies, and assets to our current stem cell-based programs,” said Vertex Chief Executive Officer and President Reshma Kewalramani, MD, in a company statement.

Last month, Vertex reported on a phase 1/2 multicenter clinical trial for two patients with type 1 diabetes who experienced improved blood glucose control with half doses of the company’s investigational allogeneic stem cell-derived islets (VX-880).

The first person to receive the product remained completely insulin-independent at 9 months post-transplant. A third patient has received the full targeted dose, but the data for this participant have yet to be reported.

For Viacyte’s part, last week the company announced that a clinical hold placed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the trial has been lifted, allowing it to move forward with a planned total enrollment of 17 patients.

“The FDA requested additional information on the program, which we provided expeditiously. We are pleased that the hold has been lifted and look forward to continuing the Phase 1/2 trial in the U.S.,” a Vertex spokesperson told this news organization.

And a company official for ViaCyte presented results for three patients who received pancreatic precursor (PEC-01) cells derived from the company’s proprietary pluripotent stem cell line at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society held in June. The cells are housed in an open delivery device implanted into a patient’s forearm. All three participants experienced improved blood glucose levels.

That presentation followed ViaCyte’s announcement in February that the first patient with type 1 diabetes had been dosed in a Phase 1 clinical trial of its investigational allogeneic, gene-edited, stem cell-derived product, VCTX210, developed in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics’ gene-editing technology. The aim is to generate islet cells that will produce insulin while avoiding recognition by the immune system, thus rendering immunosuppressive drugs unnecessary.

According to Vertex’s announcement, “The acquisition of ViaCyte provides Vertex with complementary assets, capabilities, and technologies, including additional human stem cell lines, intellectual property around stem cell differentiation, and Good Manufacturing Practice ... facilities for cell-based therapies that could accelerate Vertex’s ongoing type 1 diabetes programs. The acquisition also provides access to novel hypoimmune stem cell assets via the ViaCyte collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics.”

In response to the announcement, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, which has funded the work of both companies, said in a statement that the acquisition “represents a significant stride in cures research for the type 1 diabetes community.”

“The coming together of two leaders in the cell-derived therapies field will undoubtedly accelerate the development of VX-880 by combining their resources, technologies, intellectual property, and more,” it added.

A third company developing stem cell–derived islet cell therapies, Sernova, said in a statement provided to this news organization: “We are very confident that bringing important game-changing technologies together, as we are seeing across the industry, will result in several viable technologies for the millions of people with type 1 diabetes ... We are thrilled that there are several technologies under development using different approaches that have the potential to provide a ‘functional cure’ for this disease.”

Vertex anticipates the acquisition will close later in 2022.

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

Minimizing dietary consumption of simple sugars may help alleviate symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), new data suggest.

People who consumed lower quantities of simple sugars experienced significant improvement in total acid exposure time, number of reflux episodes, and subjective reports of heartburn and reflux symptoms, compared with those consuming higher amounts of simple sugars, the authors report.

The authors call their study the first randomized controlled diet intervention trial to investigate both the amount and type of carbohydrate on symptomatic GERD and one of only a few to investigate any type of dietary intervention for GERD.

“There’s really almost no rigorous scientific evidence on any of the foods or ingredients or nutrients that are often recommended to avoid if you have GERD,” corresponding author Heidi J. Silver, RD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Silver is research professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and director of the Vanderbilt Diet, Body Composition, and Human Metabolism Core in Nashville, Tenn.

Even the avoidance of fatty foods, which has been long promoted as part of GERD management, has little evidence to support it.

“With fat, there’s some belief that it may slow down gastric emptying. Therefore, if you had slower gastric emptying, you would have a longer time for the food to put pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter and create an environment for reflux. So, it’s kind of conceptually what is thought but not really tested,” she notes.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Greatest symptom reduction with low simple carb intake

To test the role of dietary carbohydrates, Dr. Silver and her colleagues randomly assigned 98 U.S. veterans with symptomatic GERD to intake of one of four diets with varying carbohydrate types and amounts for 9 weeks: high total/high simple (the control group), high total/low simple, low total/high simple, or low total/low simple. The total caloric intake was approximately the same for all groups.

At baseline, the average total carbohydrate consumption was 43.7% of calories, and the average simple sugar intake was 116.5 g/d. The two “low-total” groups averaged about a 10% reduction in carbohydrate calories. The “low-simple” groups reduced simple sugars by about half.

There were no changes in body weight in the control group, whereas all three of the other groups lost some weight, ranging from 1.5-2.0 kg (3.3-4.4 lb) despite calorie totals designed for weight maintenance.

There was a significant effect of diet on the two primary outcomes, total esophageal acid exposure time, and total number of reflux episodes, as measured by 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring. The change in total acid exposure time was significantly greater for the high total/low simple group, compared with the high total/high simple group.

The participants’ ratings of symptoms assessed by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, including heartburn frequency and severity, pain in throat/chest, and sleep disturbance, improved in all modified diet groups, compared with the control group. The mean degree of improvement in heartburn and regurgitation was twice as great for the modified diets, compared with the controls, and was greatest for the two “low-simple” carb groups.

Dr. Silver and colleagues hypothesize that the differential effects of the diets may relate to the way that dietary carbohydrates are sensed in the gastrointestinal tract after being enzymatically degraded into monosaccharides, possibly affecting lower esophageal tone via the effects of gut-derived hormones including ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 that are secreted in response to macronutrient intake.

Although more data are needed about the effects of carbohydrates in GERD, Dr. Silver advised, “I do think it would be smart for clinicians, when they’re discussing diet, that they bring up the simple sugars. There’s no potential harm in reducing simple sugars. You’re only benefiting yourself in multiple ways. We know that the consumption of simple sugars is extremely excessive, not just in America but worldwide.”

Asked to comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, told this news organization that “this is one of the better-designed studies with a lot of care looking at a lot of endpoints that are intriguing and useful.”

“What it says to me is there is potential for nonpharmacologic interventions for GERD that include diet change for helping patients,” he said. “This shows promise for a diet that doesn’t just concentrate on fat or acidic products and is a possible way of augmenting reflux treatment.”

However, Dr. Katz cautioned, “I don’t think anybody should do more with a 9-week study than look at it as good potential.”

“I would tell patients that this is something that they might try, but I wouldn’t make it a rigid requirement based on these data,” he added. “If I were involved in this study, the next thing I would do is transition it to real life and look at compliance to see if results were sustained at 18 weeks or 6 months.”
 

Diet part of an ‘overall reflux program’

Overall, Dr. Katz, who was the first author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, pointed out that the main nonpharmacologic advice for GERD management includes “Eat smaller meals, don’t eat before bed, don’t lie down after you eat, and reduce any individually known trigger foods.”

Essentially, he views dietary interventions as complementary to medication and other interventions.

“When people really have GERD – not just heartburn – dietary change is an adjunct,” Dr. Katz said. “GERD is a real disease, like diabetes. For some with GERD, maybe this is the only thing they need to do. But, in general, this will be an adjunct to augment an overall reflux program.”

And that program, both Dr. Silver and Dr. Katz said, should include referral to a dietitian or nutritionist.

“If you’re going to invest time in getting your patients to change their diet, it should be done with professional help, a qualified nutritionist who can work with the patient. This should not be a fad,” Dr. Katz said.

Dr. Silver noted, “In contrast to a physician, the dietitian looks at everything the person is eating. If they’re consuming a lot of simple sugars, I certainly would make that recommendation to reduce, along with other recommendations for GERD. It could be easily incorporated. We included examples in the paper of what we did to achieve that reduction and some things clinicians could focus on.”

One obvious approach, she said, is to advise patients to cut the amount of sugared soda they’re drinking, if not eliminate it entirely.

The study was funded by a VA Merit Award. Dr. Silver has no further disclosures. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

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

Minimizing dietary consumption of simple sugars may help alleviate symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), new data suggest.

People who consumed lower quantities of simple sugars experienced significant improvement in total acid exposure time, number of reflux episodes, and subjective reports of heartburn and reflux symptoms, compared with those consuming higher amounts of simple sugars, the authors report.

The authors call their study the first randomized controlled diet intervention trial to investigate both the amount and type of carbohydrate on symptomatic GERD and one of only a few to investigate any type of dietary intervention for GERD.

“There’s really almost no rigorous scientific evidence on any of the foods or ingredients or nutrients that are often recommended to avoid if you have GERD,” corresponding author Heidi J. Silver, RD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Silver is research professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and director of the Vanderbilt Diet, Body Composition, and Human Metabolism Core in Nashville, Tenn.

Even the avoidance of fatty foods, which has been long promoted as part of GERD management, has little evidence to support it.

“With fat, there’s some belief that it may slow down gastric emptying. Therefore, if you had slower gastric emptying, you would have a longer time for the food to put pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter and create an environment for reflux. So, it’s kind of conceptually what is thought but not really tested,” she notes.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Greatest symptom reduction with low simple carb intake

To test the role of dietary carbohydrates, Dr. Silver and her colleagues randomly assigned 98 U.S. veterans with symptomatic GERD to intake of one of four diets with varying carbohydrate types and amounts for 9 weeks: high total/high simple (the control group), high total/low simple, low total/high simple, or low total/low simple. The total caloric intake was approximately the same for all groups.

At baseline, the average total carbohydrate consumption was 43.7% of calories, and the average simple sugar intake was 116.5 g/d. The two “low-total” groups averaged about a 10% reduction in carbohydrate calories. The “low-simple” groups reduced simple sugars by about half.

There were no changes in body weight in the control group, whereas all three of the other groups lost some weight, ranging from 1.5-2.0 kg (3.3-4.4 lb) despite calorie totals designed for weight maintenance.

There was a significant effect of diet on the two primary outcomes, total esophageal acid exposure time, and total number of reflux episodes, as measured by 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring. The change in total acid exposure time was significantly greater for the high total/low simple group, compared with the high total/high simple group.

The participants’ ratings of symptoms assessed by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, including heartburn frequency and severity, pain in throat/chest, and sleep disturbance, improved in all modified diet groups, compared with the control group. The mean degree of improvement in heartburn and regurgitation was twice as great for the modified diets, compared with the controls, and was greatest for the two “low-simple” carb groups.

Dr. Silver and colleagues hypothesize that the differential effects of the diets may relate to the way that dietary carbohydrates are sensed in the gastrointestinal tract after being enzymatically degraded into monosaccharides, possibly affecting lower esophageal tone via the effects of gut-derived hormones including ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 that are secreted in response to macronutrient intake.

Although more data are needed about the effects of carbohydrates in GERD, Dr. Silver advised, “I do think it would be smart for clinicians, when they’re discussing diet, that they bring up the simple sugars. There’s no potential harm in reducing simple sugars. You’re only benefiting yourself in multiple ways. We know that the consumption of simple sugars is extremely excessive, not just in America but worldwide.”

Asked to comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, told this news organization that “this is one of the better-designed studies with a lot of care looking at a lot of endpoints that are intriguing and useful.”

“What it says to me is there is potential for nonpharmacologic interventions for GERD that include diet change for helping patients,” he said. “This shows promise for a diet that doesn’t just concentrate on fat or acidic products and is a possible way of augmenting reflux treatment.”

However, Dr. Katz cautioned, “I don’t think anybody should do more with a 9-week study than look at it as good potential.”

“I would tell patients that this is something that they might try, but I wouldn’t make it a rigid requirement based on these data,” he added. “If I were involved in this study, the next thing I would do is transition it to real life and look at compliance to see if results were sustained at 18 weeks or 6 months.”
 

Diet part of an ‘overall reflux program’

Overall, Dr. Katz, who was the first author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, pointed out that the main nonpharmacologic advice for GERD management includes “Eat smaller meals, don’t eat before bed, don’t lie down after you eat, and reduce any individually known trigger foods.”

Essentially, he views dietary interventions as complementary to medication and other interventions.

“When people really have GERD – not just heartburn – dietary change is an adjunct,” Dr. Katz said. “GERD is a real disease, like diabetes. For some with GERD, maybe this is the only thing they need to do. But, in general, this will be an adjunct to augment an overall reflux program.”

And that program, both Dr. Silver and Dr. Katz said, should include referral to a dietitian or nutritionist.

“If you’re going to invest time in getting your patients to change their diet, it should be done with professional help, a qualified nutritionist who can work with the patient. This should not be a fad,” Dr. Katz said.

Dr. Silver noted, “In contrast to a physician, the dietitian looks at everything the person is eating. If they’re consuming a lot of simple sugars, I certainly would make that recommendation to reduce, along with other recommendations for GERD. It could be easily incorporated. We included examples in the paper of what we did to achieve that reduction and some things clinicians could focus on.”

One obvious approach, she said, is to advise patients to cut the amount of sugared soda they’re drinking, if not eliminate it entirely.

The study was funded by a VA Merit Award. Dr. Silver has no further disclosures. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

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

Minimizing dietary consumption of simple sugars may help alleviate symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), new data suggest.

People who consumed lower quantities of simple sugars experienced significant improvement in total acid exposure time, number of reflux episodes, and subjective reports of heartburn and reflux symptoms, compared with those consuming higher amounts of simple sugars, the authors report.

The authors call their study the first randomized controlled diet intervention trial to investigate both the amount and type of carbohydrate on symptomatic GERD and one of only a few to investigate any type of dietary intervention for GERD.

“There’s really almost no rigorous scientific evidence on any of the foods or ingredients or nutrients that are often recommended to avoid if you have GERD,” corresponding author Heidi J. Silver, RD, PhD, told this news organization. Dr. Silver is research professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and director of the Vanderbilt Diet, Body Composition, and Human Metabolism Core in Nashville, Tenn.

Even the avoidance of fatty foods, which has been long promoted as part of GERD management, has little evidence to support it.

“With fat, there’s some belief that it may slow down gastric emptying. Therefore, if you had slower gastric emptying, you would have a longer time for the food to put pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter and create an environment for reflux. So, it’s kind of conceptually what is thought but not really tested,” she notes.

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Greatest symptom reduction with low simple carb intake

To test the role of dietary carbohydrates, Dr. Silver and her colleagues randomly assigned 98 U.S. veterans with symptomatic GERD to intake of one of four diets with varying carbohydrate types and amounts for 9 weeks: high total/high simple (the control group), high total/low simple, low total/high simple, or low total/low simple. The total caloric intake was approximately the same for all groups.

At baseline, the average total carbohydrate consumption was 43.7% of calories, and the average simple sugar intake was 116.5 g/d. The two “low-total” groups averaged about a 10% reduction in carbohydrate calories. The “low-simple” groups reduced simple sugars by about half.

There were no changes in body weight in the control group, whereas all three of the other groups lost some weight, ranging from 1.5-2.0 kg (3.3-4.4 lb) despite calorie totals designed for weight maintenance.

There was a significant effect of diet on the two primary outcomes, total esophageal acid exposure time, and total number of reflux episodes, as measured by 24-hour ambulatory pH monitoring. The change in total acid exposure time was significantly greater for the high total/low simple group, compared with the high total/high simple group.

The participants’ ratings of symptoms assessed by the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire and the GERD Symptom Assessment Scale, including heartburn frequency and severity, pain in throat/chest, and sleep disturbance, improved in all modified diet groups, compared with the control group. The mean degree of improvement in heartburn and regurgitation was twice as great for the modified diets, compared with the controls, and was greatest for the two “low-simple” carb groups.

Dr. Silver and colleagues hypothesize that the differential effects of the diets may relate to the way that dietary carbohydrates are sensed in the gastrointestinal tract after being enzymatically degraded into monosaccharides, possibly affecting lower esophageal tone via the effects of gut-derived hormones including ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide 1 that are secreted in response to macronutrient intake.

Although more data are needed about the effects of carbohydrates in GERD, Dr. Silver advised, “I do think it would be smart for clinicians, when they’re discussing diet, that they bring up the simple sugars. There’s no potential harm in reducing simple sugars. You’re only benefiting yourself in multiple ways. We know that the consumption of simple sugars is extremely excessive, not just in America but worldwide.”

Asked to comment, Philip O. Katz, MD, professor of medicine and director of the GI Function Laboratories at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, told this news organization that “this is one of the better-designed studies with a lot of care looking at a lot of endpoints that are intriguing and useful.”

“What it says to me is there is potential for nonpharmacologic interventions for GERD that include diet change for helping patients,” he said. “This shows promise for a diet that doesn’t just concentrate on fat or acidic products and is a possible way of augmenting reflux treatment.”

However, Dr. Katz cautioned, “I don’t think anybody should do more with a 9-week study than look at it as good potential.”

“I would tell patients that this is something that they might try, but I wouldn’t make it a rigid requirement based on these data,” he added. “If I were involved in this study, the next thing I would do is transition it to real life and look at compliance to see if results were sustained at 18 weeks or 6 months.”
 

Diet part of an ‘overall reflux program’

Overall, Dr. Katz, who was the first author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, pointed out that the main nonpharmacologic advice for GERD management includes “Eat smaller meals, don’t eat before bed, don’t lie down after you eat, and reduce any individually known trigger foods.”

Essentially, he views dietary interventions as complementary to medication and other interventions.

“When people really have GERD – not just heartburn – dietary change is an adjunct,” Dr. Katz said. “GERD is a real disease, like diabetes. For some with GERD, maybe this is the only thing they need to do. But, in general, this will be an adjunct to augment an overall reflux program.”

And that program, both Dr. Silver and Dr. Katz said, should include referral to a dietitian or nutritionist.

“If you’re going to invest time in getting your patients to change their diet, it should be done with professional help, a qualified nutritionist who can work with the patient. This should not be a fad,” Dr. Katz said.

Dr. Silver noted, “In contrast to a physician, the dietitian looks at everything the person is eating. If they’re consuming a lot of simple sugars, I certainly would make that recommendation to reduce, along with other recommendations for GERD. It could be easily incorporated. We included examples in the paper of what we did to achieve that reduction and some things clinicians could focus on.”

One obvious approach, she said, is to advise patients to cut the amount of sugared soda they’re drinking, if not eliminate it entirely.

The study was funded by a VA Merit Award. Dr. Silver has no further disclosures. Dr. Katz is a consultant for Phathom Pharmaceuticals and Sebella Pharmaceuticals and serves on an advisory board for AstraZeneca.

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

Screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 years and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the condition by mid-adolescence, new data suggest.

Both genetic screening and islet-cell autoantibody screening for type 1 diabetes risk have become less expensive in recent years. Nonetheless, as of now, most children who receive such screening do so through programs that screen relatives of people who already have the condition, such as the global TrialNet program.

Some in the type 1 diabetes field have urged wider screening, with the rationale that knowledge of increased risk can prepare families to recognize the early signs of hyperglycemia and seek medical help to prevent the onset of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Moreover, potential therapies to prevent or delay type 1 diabetes are currently in development, including the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio).

However, given that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is about 1 in 300 children, any population-wide screening program would need to be implemented in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible with limited numbers of tests, say Mohamed Ghalwash, PhD, of the Center for Computational Health, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and colleagues.

Results from their analysis of nearly 25,000 children from five prospective cohorts in Europe and the United States were published online  in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
 

Screening in kids feasible, but may need geographic tweaking

“Our results show that initial screening for islet autoantibodies at two ages (2 years and 6 years) is sensitive and efficient for public health translation but might require adjustment by country on the basis of population-specific disease characteristics,” Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues write.

In an accompanying editorial, pediatric endocrinologist Maria J. Redondo, MD, PhD, writes: “This study is timely because recent successes in preventing type 1 diabetes highlight the need to identify the best candidates for intervention ... This paper constitutes an important contribution to the literature.”

However, Dr. Redondo, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, also cautioned: “It remains to be seen whether Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues’ strategy could work in the general population, because all the participants in the combined dataset had genetic risk factors for the disease or a relative with type 1 diabetes, in whom performance is expected to be higher.”

She also noted that most participants were of northern European ancestry and that it is unknown whether the same or a similar screening strategy could be applied to individuals older than 15 years, in whom preclinical type 1 diabetes progresses more slowly.
 

Two-time childhood screening yielded high sensitivity, specificity

The data from a total of 24,662 participants were pooled from five prospective cohorts from Finland (DIPP), Germany (BABYDIAB), Sweden (DiPiS), and the United States (DAISY and DEW-IT).

All were at elevated risk for type 1 diabetes based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotyping, and some had first-degree relatives with the condition. Participants were screened annually for three type 1 diabetes–associated autoantibodies up to age 15 years or the onset of type 1 diabetes.

During follow-up, 672 children developed type 1 diabetes by age 15 years and 6,050 did not. (The rest hadn’t yet reached age 15 years or type 1 diabetes onset.) The median age at first appearance of islet autoantibodies was 4.5 years.

A two-age screening strategy at 2 years and 6 years was more sensitive than screening at just one age, with a sensitivity of 82% and a positive predictive value of 79% for the development of type 1 diabetes by age 15 years.

The predictive value increased with the number of autoantibodies tested. For example, a single islet autoantibody at age 2 years indicated a 4-year risk of developing type 1 diabetes by age 5.99 years of 31%, while multiple antibody positivity at age 2 years carried a 4-year risk of 55%.

By age 6 years, the risk over the next 9 years was 39% if the test had been negative at age 2 years and 70% if the test had been positive at 2 years. But overall, a 6-year-old with multiple autoantibodies had an overall 83% risk of type 1 diabetes regardless of the test result at 2 years.

The predictive performance of sensitivity by age differed by country, suggesting that the optimal ages for autoantibody testing might differ by geographic region, Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues say.

Dr. Redondo commented, “The model might require adaptation to local factors that affect the progression and prevalence of type 1 diabetes.” And, she added, “important aspects, such as screening cost, global access, acceptability, and follow-up support will need to be addressed for this strategy to be a viable public health option.”

The study was funded by JDRF. Dr. Ghalwash and another author are employees of IBM. A third author was a JDRF employee when the research was done and is now an employee of Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Redondo has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 years and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the condition by mid-adolescence, new data suggest.

Both genetic screening and islet-cell autoantibody screening for type 1 diabetes risk have become less expensive in recent years. Nonetheless, as of now, most children who receive such screening do so through programs that screen relatives of people who already have the condition, such as the global TrialNet program.

Some in the type 1 diabetes field have urged wider screening, with the rationale that knowledge of increased risk can prepare families to recognize the early signs of hyperglycemia and seek medical help to prevent the onset of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Moreover, potential therapies to prevent or delay type 1 diabetes are currently in development, including the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio).

However, given that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is about 1 in 300 children, any population-wide screening program would need to be implemented in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible with limited numbers of tests, say Mohamed Ghalwash, PhD, of the Center for Computational Health, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and colleagues.

Results from their analysis of nearly 25,000 children from five prospective cohorts in Europe and the United States were published online  in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
 

Screening in kids feasible, but may need geographic tweaking

“Our results show that initial screening for islet autoantibodies at two ages (2 years and 6 years) is sensitive and efficient for public health translation but might require adjustment by country on the basis of population-specific disease characteristics,” Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues write.

In an accompanying editorial, pediatric endocrinologist Maria J. Redondo, MD, PhD, writes: “This study is timely because recent successes in preventing type 1 diabetes highlight the need to identify the best candidates for intervention ... This paper constitutes an important contribution to the literature.”

However, Dr. Redondo, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, also cautioned: “It remains to be seen whether Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues’ strategy could work in the general population, because all the participants in the combined dataset had genetic risk factors for the disease or a relative with type 1 diabetes, in whom performance is expected to be higher.”

She also noted that most participants were of northern European ancestry and that it is unknown whether the same or a similar screening strategy could be applied to individuals older than 15 years, in whom preclinical type 1 diabetes progresses more slowly.
 

Two-time childhood screening yielded high sensitivity, specificity

The data from a total of 24,662 participants were pooled from five prospective cohorts from Finland (DIPP), Germany (BABYDIAB), Sweden (DiPiS), and the United States (DAISY and DEW-IT).

All were at elevated risk for type 1 diabetes based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotyping, and some had first-degree relatives with the condition. Participants were screened annually for three type 1 diabetes–associated autoantibodies up to age 15 years or the onset of type 1 diabetes.

During follow-up, 672 children developed type 1 diabetes by age 15 years and 6,050 did not. (The rest hadn’t yet reached age 15 years or type 1 diabetes onset.) The median age at first appearance of islet autoantibodies was 4.5 years.

A two-age screening strategy at 2 years and 6 years was more sensitive than screening at just one age, with a sensitivity of 82% and a positive predictive value of 79% for the development of type 1 diabetes by age 15 years.

The predictive value increased with the number of autoantibodies tested. For example, a single islet autoantibody at age 2 years indicated a 4-year risk of developing type 1 diabetes by age 5.99 years of 31%, while multiple antibody positivity at age 2 years carried a 4-year risk of 55%.

By age 6 years, the risk over the next 9 years was 39% if the test had been negative at age 2 years and 70% if the test had been positive at 2 years. But overall, a 6-year-old with multiple autoantibodies had an overall 83% risk of type 1 diabetes regardless of the test result at 2 years.

The predictive performance of sensitivity by age differed by country, suggesting that the optimal ages for autoantibody testing might differ by geographic region, Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues say.

Dr. Redondo commented, “The model might require adaptation to local factors that affect the progression and prevalence of type 1 diabetes.” And, she added, “important aspects, such as screening cost, global access, acceptability, and follow-up support will need to be addressed for this strategy to be a viable public health option.”

The study was funded by JDRF. Dr. Ghalwash and another author are employees of IBM. A third author was a JDRF employee when the research was done and is now an employee of Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Redondo has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 years and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the condition by mid-adolescence, new data suggest.

Both genetic screening and islet-cell autoantibody screening for type 1 diabetes risk have become less expensive in recent years. Nonetheless, as of now, most children who receive such screening do so through programs that screen relatives of people who already have the condition, such as the global TrialNet program.

Some in the type 1 diabetes field have urged wider screening, with the rationale that knowledge of increased risk can prepare families to recognize the early signs of hyperglycemia and seek medical help to prevent the onset of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Moreover, potential therapies to prevent or delay type 1 diabetes are currently in development, including the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio).

However, given that the incidence of type 1 diabetes is about 1 in 300 children, any population-wide screening program would need to be implemented in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible with limited numbers of tests, say Mohamed Ghalwash, PhD, of the Center for Computational Health, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and colleagues.

Results from their analysis of nearly 25,000 children from five prospective cohorts in Europe and the United States were published online  in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
 

Screening in kids feasible, but may need geographic tweaking

“Our results show that initial screening for islet autoantibodies at two ages (2 years and 6 years) is sensitive and efficient for public health translation but might require adjustment by country on the basis of population-specific disease characteristics,” Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues write.

In an accompanying editorial, pediatric endocrinologist Maria J. Redondo, MD, PhD, writes: “This study is timely because recent successes in preventing type 1 diabetes highlight the need to identify the best candidates for intervention ... This paper constitutes an important contribution to the literature.”

However, Dr. Redondo, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, also cautioned: “It remains to be seen whether Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues’ strategy could work in the general population, because all the participants in the combined dataset had genetic risk factors for the disease or a relative with type 1 diabetes, in whom performance is expected to be higher.”

She also noted that most participants were of northern European ancestry and that it is unknown whether the same or a similar screening strategy could be applied to individuals older than 15 years, in whom preclinical type 1 diabetes progresses more slowly.
 

Two-time childhood screening yielded high sensitivity, specificity

The data from a total of 24,662 participants were pooled from five prospective cohorts from Finland (DIPP), Germany (BABYDIAB), Sweden (DiPiS), and the United States (DAISY and DEW-IT).

All were at elevated risk for type 1 diabetes based on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotyping, and some had first-degree relatives with the condition. Participants were screened annually for three type 1 diabetes–associated autoantibodies up to age 15 years or the onset of type 1 diabetes.

During follow-up, 672 children developed type 1 diabetes by age 15 years and 6,050 did not. (The rest hadn’t yet reached age 15 years or type 1 diabetes onset.) The median age at first appearance of islet autoantibodies was 4.5 years.

A two-age screening strategy at 2 years and 6 years was more sensitive than screening at just one age, with a sensitivity of 82% and a positive predictive value of 79% for the development of type 1 diabetes by age 15 years.

The predictive value increased with the number of autoantibodies tested. For example, a single islet autoantibody at age 2 years indicated a 4-year risk of developing type 1 diabetes by age 5.99 years of 31%, while multiple antibody positivity at age 2 years carried a 4-year risk of 55%.

By age 6 years, the risk over the next 9 years was 39% if the test had been negative at age 2 years and 70% if the test had been positive at 2 years. But overall, a 6-year-old with multiple autoantibodies had an overall 83% risk of type 1 diabetes regardless of the test result at 2 years.

The predictive performance of sensitivity by age differed by country, suggesting that the optimal ages for autoantibody testing might differ by geographic region, Dr. Ghalwash and colleagues say.

Dr. Redondo commented, “The model might require adaptation to local factors that affect the progression and prevalence of type 1 diabetes.” And, she added, “important aspects, such as screening cost, global access, acceptability, and follow-up support will need to be addressed for this strategy to be a viable public health option.”

The study was funded by JDRF. Dr. Ghalwash and another author are employees of IBM. A third author was a JDRF employee when the research was done and is now an employee of Janssen Research and Development. Dr. Redondo has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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