Diabetes

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.

Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.

That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.

But what if the results aren’t the same?

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The results of a 12-week exercise program were different for morning versus evening workouts.

Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.

The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
 

An accidental discovery

The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.

The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).

But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.

It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.

Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.

Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
 

Strategic timing for powerful results

Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.

On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.

The findings apply to both men and women.

Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.

A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.

They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
 

Train consistently, sleep well

When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)

Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.

Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.

Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.

“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
 

All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better

“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”

But context matters, he noted.

“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.

And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.

And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.

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

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for Medicare enrollees receiving quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were “substantially higher than regimens limited to generically available medications,” according to a new analysis of prescription drug plans.

“Despite the clinical benefit of quadruple therapy” consisting of beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “coverage was restricted primarily through cost sharing, and estimated annual OOP costs for beneficiaries were [over $2,000] per year under most plans,” wrote Kamil F. Faridi, MD, and associates. The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For just 1 month of quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the estimated median OOP cost was $94 for individuals covered by a Medicare prescription drug plan during the second quarter of 2020, with the majority coming from the ARNI (median, $47) and the SGLT2 inhibitor (median, $45). Alternative HFrEF regimens were significantly less costly, ranging from $3 to $47 OOP, the investigators reported.

Almost all of the 4,068 plans participating in Medicare at that time covered quadruple therapy for HFrEF, but more than 99% restricted coverage by instituting cost sharing for medications at tier level 3 and above on the drug formularies. Such restrictions for ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors “might not be readily apparent to prescribing physicians,” wrote Dr. Faridi of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

Other methods of regulating coverage were less common. Prior authorization of ARNIs was invoked by about a quarter of the plans, but none required authorization for any of the other drugs involved, and few plans used step therapy-requirements involving lower-cost alternatives, they noted.

“The use of cost sharing restricts access through high OOP costs for patients. Furthermore, these policies likely disadvantage relatively poorer patients (although the poorest Medicare patients will tend to be dual-enrolled in Medicaid and protected from cost sharing),” Jason H. Wasfy, MD, and Anna C. O’Kelly, MD, said in an accompanying editorial comment .

Since acceptable cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated for dapagliflozin, an SGLT1 inhibitor, and for the ARNIs, and because these medications have no generic equivalents, health plans should “use the discretion they have under Medicare Part D to reduce cost sharing for patients with HFrEF,” Dr. Wasfy and Dr. O’Kelly wrote, adding that the current study “demonstrates that without consensus on cost effectiveness from the societal perspective, costs can be imposed directly on patients in ways that slow uptake of cost-effective drugs.”

Data for all Medicare Advantage plans (n = 3,167) and standalone Part D plans (n = 901) came from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files. Annual OOP costs were estimated “using each phase of a 2020 Medicare part D standard benefit,” including deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage, the investigators explained.

Dr. Faridi and associates did not report any direct funding sources for their study. Dr Faridi received a grant from the National Institutes of Health outside the scope of the present work, and other investigators disclosed ties to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Cytokinetics, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Dr. Wasfy is supported by the American Heart Association and has received consulting fees from Pfizer and honoraria from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Dr. O’Kelly has no relevant disclosures.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for Medicare enrollees receiving quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were “substantially higher than regimens limited to generically available medications,” according to a new analysis of prescription drug plans.

“Despite the clinical benefit of quadruple therapy” consisting of beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “coverage was restricted primarily through cost sharing, and estimated annual OOP costs for beneficiaries were [over $2,000] per year under most plans,” wrote Kamil F. Faridi, MD, and associates. The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For just 1 month of quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the estimated median OOP cost was $94 for individuals covered by a Medicare prescription drug plan during the second quarter of 2020, with the majority coming from the ARNI (median, $47) and the SGLT2 inhibitor (median, $45). Alternative HFrEF regimens were significantly less costly, ranging from $3 to $47 OOP, the investigators reported.

Almost all of the 4,068 plans participating in Medicare at that time covered quadruple therapy for HFrEF, but more than 99% restricted coverage by instituting cost sharing for medications at tier level 3 and above on the drug formularies. Such restrictions for ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors “might not be readily apparent to prescribing physicians,” wrote Dr. Faridi of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

Other methods of regulating coverage were less common. Prior authorization of ARNIs was invoked by about a quarter of the plans, but none required authorization for any of the other drugs involved, and few plans used step therapy-requirements involving lower-cost alternatives, they noted.

“The use of cost sharing restricts access through high OOP costs for patients. Furthermore, these policies likely disadvantage relatively poorer patients (although the poorest Medicare patients will tend to be dual-enrolled in Medicaid and protected from cost sharing),” Jason H. Wasfy, MD, and Anna C. O’Kelly, MD, said in an accompanying editorial comment .

Since acceptable cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated for dapagliflozin, an SGLT1 inhibitor, and for the ARNIs, and because these medications have no generic equivalents, health plans should “use the discretion they have under Medicare Part D to reduce cost sharing for patients with HFrEF,” Dr. Wasfy and Dr. O’Kelly wrote, adding that the current study “demonstrates that without consensus on cost effectiveness from the societal perspective, costs can be imposed directly on patients in ways that slow uptake of cost-effective drugs.”

Data for all Medicare Advantage plans (n = 3,167) and standalone Part D plans (n = 901) came from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files. Annual OOP costs were estimated “using each phase of a 2020 Medicare part D standard benefit,” including deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage, the investigators explained.

Dr. Faridi and associates did not report any direct funding sources for their study. Dr Faridi received a grant from the National Institutes of Health outside the scope of the present work, and other investigators disclosed ties to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Cytokinetics, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Dr. Wasfy is supported by the American Heart Association and has received consulting fees from Pfizer and honoraria from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Dr. O’Kelly has no relevant disclosures.

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for Medicare enrollees receiving quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were “substantially higher than regimens limited to generically available medications,” according to a new analysis of prescription drug plans.

“Despite the clinical benefit of quadruple therapy” consisting of beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, “coverage was restricted primarily through cost sharing, and estimated annual OOP costs for beneficiaries were [over $2,000] per year under most plans,” wrote Kamil F. Faridi, MD, and associates. The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For just 1 month of quadruple drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the estimated median OOP cost was $94 for individuals covered by a Medicare prescription drug plan during the second quarter of 2020, with the majority coming from the ARNI (median, $47) and the SGLT2 inhibitor (median, $45). Alternative HFrEF regimens were significantly less costly, ranging from $3 to $47 OOP, the investigators reported.

Almost all of the 4,068 plans participating in Medicare at that time covered quadruple therapy for HFrEF, but more than 99% restricted coverage by instituting cost sharing for medications at tier level 3 and above on the drug formularies. Such restrictions for ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors “might not be readily apparent to prescribing physicians,” wrote Dr. Faridi of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates.

Other methods of regulating coverage were less common. Prior authorization of ARNIs was invoked by about a quarter of the plans, but none required authorization for any of the other drugs involved, and few plans used step therapy-requirements involving lower-cost alternatives, they noted.

“The use of cost sharing restricts access through high OOP costs for patients. Furthermore, these policies likely disadvantage relatively poorer patients (although the poorest Medicare patients will tend to be dual-enrolled in Medicaid and protected from cost sharing),” Jason H. Wasfy, MD, and Anna C. O’Kelly, MD, said in an accompanying editorial comment .

Since acceptable cost-effectiveness has been demonstrated for dapagliflozin, an SGLT1 inhibitor, and for the ARNIs, and because these medications have no generic equivalents, health plans should “use the discretion they have under Medicare Part D to reduce cost sharing for patients with HFrEF,” Dr. Wasfy and Dr. O’Kelly wrote, adding that the current study “demonstrates that without consensus on cost effectiveness from the societal perspective, costs can be imposed directly on patients in ways that slow uptake of cost-effective drugs.”

Data for all Medicare Advantage plans (n = 3,167) and standalone Part D plans (n = 901) came from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files. Annual OOP costs were estimated “using each phase of a 2020 Medicare part D standard benefit,” including deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage, the investigators explained.

Dr. Faridi and associates did not report any direct funding sources for their study. Dr Faridi received a grant from the National Institutes of Health outside the scope of the present work, and other investigators disclosed ties to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Cytokinetics, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Dr. Wasfy is supported by the American Heart Association and has received consulting fees from Pfizer and honoraria from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Dr. O’Kelly has no relevant disclosures.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

Experts engaged in a contentious debate on the usefulness of the NOVA system, which divides foods into different categories based on how much they have been processed, during a session at a virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

The NOVA system divides foods into “fresh or minimally processed,” such as strawberries or steel-cut oats; “processed culinary ingredients,” such as olive oil; “processed foods,” such as cheeses; and “ultra-processed foods.” UPFs are defined as “industrial formulations made by deconstructing natural food into its chemical constituents, modifying them and recombining them with additives into products liable to displace all other NOVA food groups.”

According to doctors who presented during the meeting, ultra-processed foods are drawing increased attention, because researchers have been examining them in National Institutes of Health–funded studies and journalists have been writing about them.

During the debate session at the meeting, some experts said that, with obesity and poor health skyrocketing, increased awareness and labeling of UPFs can only be a good thing. In contrast others noted at the meeting that the classification system that has come to be used for identifying UPFs – the NOVA Food Classification system – is too mushy, confusing, and, ultimately unhelpful.

Carlos Monteiro, MD, PhD, professor of nutrition and public health at the University of Sao Paolo, was part of the group favoring the NOVA system’s classifying certain foods as UPFs, during the debate. He drew attention to the extent to which the world’s population is getting its calories from UPFs.

Mexico and France get about 30% of calories from these foods. In Canada, it’s 48%. And in the United States, it’s 57%, Dr. Monteiro said.

Studies have found that UPFs, many of which are designed to be exceedingly flavorful and intended to replace consumption of unprocessed whole foods, lead to more overall energy intake, more added sugar in the diet, and less fiber and protein intake, he said.

To further support his arguments, Dr. Monteiro pointed to studies suggesting that it is not just the resulting change in the nutritional intake that is unhealthy, but the UPF manufacturing process itself. When adjusting for fat, sugar, and sodium intake, for example, health outcomes associated with UPFs remain poor, he explained.

“I’m sorry,” he said in the debate. “If you don’t reduce this, you don’t reduce your obesity, your diabetes prevalence.”

A study presented by Jacqueline Vernarelli, PhD, during a different session at the meeting suggested there may be other downsides to consuming UPFs. This research, which was based on the U.S. National Youth Fitness Survey, found that poorer locomotor skills among children aged 3-5 and poorer cardiovascular fitness among those aged 12-15 were associated with getting more calories from UPFs.

Those with lower cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,234 calories a day from UPFs, and those with higher cardiovascular fitness consumed 1,007 calories a day from UPFs (P = .002), according to the new research.

“It’s notable here that, although these differences are significant, both groups are consuming a pretty high proportion of their diet from ultra-processed foods,” said Dr. Vernarelli, associate professor of public health at Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., during her presentation.

In the debate session, Arne Astrup, MD, PhD, senior project director at the Healthy Weight Center at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Hellerup, Denmark, presented an opposing view.

He said the definition of UPFs makes it too difficult to categorize many foods, pointing to a study from this year in which about 150 nutrition experts, doctors, and dietitians classified 120 foods. Only three marketed foods and one generic food were classified the same by all the evaluators.

Referring to the study Dr. Astrup cited, Dr. Monteiro said it was a mere “exercise,” and the experts involved in it had conflicts of interest.

Dr. Astrup touted this study’s size and its appearance in the peer-reviewed journal the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Defending his point of view, Dr. Astrup said, “The definition and classification is so ambiguous, and the risk of misclassification is so extremely high, I think we really miss the basic requirement of science, namely that we know what we are talking about,” he said.

If you take an unprocessed food, and insert a “little additive … suddenly it’s an ultra-processed food,” he added.
 

UPF definition doesn’t flag some unhealthy foods

Susan Roberts, PhD, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, Boston, was a discussant at the debate and touched on the merits of both sides. She noted that the UPF definition doesn’t flag some “clearly unhealthy foods,” such as table sugar, but does flag some healthy ones, such as plant-based burgers – to which Dr. Monteiro said that the system was not a system meant to divide foods into healthy and unhealthy groups, during the debate session.

The inclusion of both healthy and unhealthy foods in NOVA’s definition of a UPF is a serious problem, Dr. Roberts said.

“It’s almost like it’s an emotional classification designed to get at the food industry rather than focusing on health – and I think that’s asking for trouble because it’s just going to be such a mess to tell consumers, ‘Well, this ultra-processed food is healthy and this one isn’t,’ ” she said. What’s happening is the term ultra-processed is being used interchangeably with unhealthy.

The discussion that the UPF classification has generated is useful, Dr. Roberts continued. “This definition grew out of that recognition that we’re engaged in an unprecedented experiment of how unhealthy can you make the world without having a major catastrophe.”

She added that the UPF concept deserves a more formalized and rigorous evaluation.

“This is an important topic for the future of public health, and I think it needs big committees to address it seriously,” she said. “I think we should not be dealing with this individually in different labs.”
 

Doctor’s take on usefulness of discussing UPF concept with patients

Mark Corkins, MD, who did not participate in the debate at the meeting, said he talks to parents and children about nutrition at every office visit in which he sees a child with an unhealthy weight.

“Persistence wears down resistance,” said the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics nutrition committee, in an interview.“A consistent message – you say the same thing and you say it multiple times.”

The idea of “ultra-processed foods” plays a role in those conversations, but largely in the background. It’s a topic that’s important for pediatric health, Dr. Corkins said – but he doesn’t make it the focal point.

“It’s not a direct attack on ultra-processed foods that usually I take as my direction,” said Dr. Corkins, who is also chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.. “What I try to focus on, and what I think the American Academy of Pediatrics would focus on, is that we need to focus on making the diet better.”

He added, “Parents are aware – they don’t call it ultra-processed food, they call it junk food.”

Dr. Corkins continued that he is reluctant to directly challenge parents on feeding their children unhealthy foods – ultra-processed or not – lest he shame them and harm the relationship.

“Guilt as a motivator isn’t really highly successful,” he said, in an interview.

Dr. Astrup reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Green Leaf Medical and RNPC, France. Dr. Roberts reported advisory committee or board member involvement with Danone, and an ownership interest in Instinct Health Science. Dr. Monteiro and Dr. Corkins reported no relevant disclosures.

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

ATLANTA – U.S. clinicians caring for people with diabetes should take a more aggressive approach to using combined medical treatments proven to slow the otherwise relentless progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a new joint statement by the American Diabetes Association and a major international nephrology organization presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA).

The statement elevates treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class to first-line for people with diabetes and laboratory-based evidence of advancing CKD. It also re-emphasizes the key role of concurrent first-line treatment with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker), metformin, and a statin.

The new statement also urges clinicians to rapidly add treatment with the new nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone (Kerendia) for further renal protection in the many patients suitable for treatment with this agent, and it recommends the second-line addition of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as the best add-on for any patient who needs additional glycemic control on top of metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor.

The consensus joint statement with these updates came from a nine-member writing group assembled by the ADA and the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organization.

“We’re going to try to make this feasible. We have to; I don’t think we have a choice,” commented Amy K. Mottl, MD, a nephrologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Dr. Mottl was not involved with writing the consensus statement but has been active in the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative of the American Society of Nephrology, another group promoting a more aggressive multidrug-class approach to treating CKD in people with diabetes.
 

Wider use of costly drugs

Adoption of this evidence-based approach by U.S. clinicians will both increase the number of agents that many patients receive and drive a significant uptick in the cost and complexity of patient care, a consequence acknowledged by the authors of the joint statement as well as outside experts.

But they view this as unavoidable given what’s now known about the high incidence of worsening CKD in patients with diabetes and the types of interventions proven to blunt this.

Much of the financial implication stems from the price of agents from the new drug classes now emphasized in the consensus recommendations – SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. All these drugs currently remain on-patent with relatively expensive retail prices in the range of about $600 to $1,000/month.

Commenting on the cost concerns, Dr. Mottl highlighted that she currently has several patients in her practice on agents from two or more of these newer classes, and she has generally found it possible for patients to get much of their expenses covered by insurers and through drug-company assistance programs.

“The major gap is patients on Medicare,” she noted in an interview, because the Federal health insurance program does not allow beneficiaries to receive rebates for their drug costs. “The Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative is currently lobbying members of Congress to lift that barrier,” she emphasized.
 

Improved alignment

Details of the KDIGO recommendations feature in a guideline from that organization that appeared as a draft document online in March 2022. The ADA’s version recently appeared as an update to its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2022, as reported by this news organization. A panel of five KDIGO representatives and four members appointed by the ADA produced the harmonization statement.

Recommendations from both organizations were largely in agreement at the outset, but following the panel’s review, the two groups are now “very well-aligned,” said Peter Rossing, MD, DMSc, a diabetologist and professor at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen, and a KDIGO representative to the writing committee, who presented the joint statement at the ADA meeting.

“These are very important drugs that are vastly underused,” commented Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, who specializes in CKD and was not involved with the new statement.

“Coherence and simplicity are what we need so that there are no excuses about moving forward” with the recommended combination treatment, he stressed.

Moving too slow

“No one is resisting using these new medications, but they are just moving too slowly, and data now show that it’s moving more slowly in the United States than elsewhere. That may be partly because U.S. patients are charged much more for these drugs, and partly because U.S. health care is so much more fragmented,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new joint consensus statement may help, “but the fragmentation of the United States system and COVID-19 are big enemies” for any short-term increased use of the highlighted agents, he added.

Evidence for low U.S. use of SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone, and GLP-1 receptor agonists is becoming well known.

Dr. Rossing cited a 2019 report from the CURE-CKD registry of more than 600,000 U.S. patients with CKD showing that less than 1% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and less than 1% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Not all these patients had diabetes, but a subgroup analysis of those with diabetes, prediabetes, or hypertension showed that usage of each of these two classes remained at less than 1% even in this group.

A separate report at the ADA meeting documented that of more than 1.3 million people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020, just 10% received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7% a GLP-1 receptor agonist. And this is in a setting where drug cost is not a limiting factor.

In addition to focusing on the updated scheme for drug intervention in the consensus statement, Dr. Rossing highlighted several other important points that the writing committee emphasized.

Lifestyle optimization is a core first-line element of managing patients with diabetes and CKD, including a healthy diet, exercise, smoking cessation, and weight control. Other key steps for management include optimization of blood pressure, glucose, and lipids. The statement also calls out a potentially helpful role for continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and CKD.

The statement notes that patients who also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease usually qualify for and could potentially benefit from more intensified lipid management with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor, as well as a potential role for treatment with antiplatelet agents.
 

‘If you don’t screen, you won’t find it’

Dr. Rossing also stressed the importance of regular screening for the onset of advanced CKD in patients. Patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 60 mL/min/1.73m2, as well as those who develop microalbuminuria with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 30 mg/g (30 mg/mmol), have a stage of CKD that warrants the drug interventions he outlined.

Guidelines from both the ADA and KDIGO were already in place, recommending annual screening of patients with diabetes for both these parameters starting at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years following initial diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

“If you don’t screen, you won’t find it, and you won’t be able to treat,” Dr. Rossing warned. He also highlighted the panel’s recommendation to treat these patients with an SGLT2 inhibitor as long as their eGFR is at least 20 mL/min/1.73m2. Treatment can then continue even when their eGFR drops lower.

Starting treatment with finerenone requires that patients have a normal level of serum potassium, he emphasized.

One reason for developing the new ADA and KDIGO statement is that “discrepancies in clinical practice guideline recommendations from various professional organizations add to confusion that impedes understanding of best practices,” write Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, and associates in a recent commentary.

The goal of the new statement is to harmonize and promote the shared recommendations of the two organizations, added Dr. Tuttle, who is executive director for research at Providence Healthcare, Spokane, Washington, and a KDIGO representative on the statement writing panel.

Dr. Mottl has reported being a consultant to Bayer. Dr. Rossing has reported being a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Vifor, as well as receiving research grants from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Coresh has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tuttle has reported being a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Novo Nordisk, and Travere.

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

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with diabetes who experience COVID-19 are at increased risk for long COVID compared to individuals without diabetes, according to data from a literature review of seven studies.

Diabetes remains a risk factor for severe COVID-19, but whether it is a risk factor for postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), also known as long COVID, remains unclear, Jessica L. Harding, PhD, of Emory University, said in a late-breaking poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Long COVID is generally defined as “sequelae that extend beyond the 4 weeks after initial infection” and may include a range of symptoms that affect multiple organs, Dr. Harding said. A study conducted in January of 2022 suggested that type 2 diabetes was one of several strong risk factors for long COVID, she noted.

Dr. Harding and colleagues reviewed data from seven studies published from Jan. 1, 2020, to Jan. 27, 2022, on the risk of PASC in people with and without diabetes. The studies included patients with a minimum of 4 weeks’ follow-up after COVID-19 diagnosis. All seven studies had a longitudinal cohort design, and included adults from high-income countries, with study populations ranging from 104 to 4,182.

Across the studies, long COVID definitions varied, but included ongoing symptoms of fatigue, cough, and dyspnea, with follow-up periods of 4 weeks to 7 months.

Overall, three of the seven studies indicated that diabetes was a risk factor for long COVID (odds ratio [OR] greater than 4 for all) and four studies indicated that diabetes was not a risk factor for long COVID (OR, 0.5-2.2).

One of the three studies showing increased risk included 2,334 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19; of these about 5% had diabetes. The odds ratio for PASC for individuals with diabetes was 4.18. In another study of 209 persons with COVID-19, of whom 22% had diabetes, diabetes was significantly correlated with respiratory viral disease (meaning at least two respiratory symptoms). The third study showing an increased risk of long COVID in diabetes patients included 104 kidney transplant patients, of whom 20% had diabetes; the odds ratio for PASC was 4.42.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small number of studies and the heterogeneity of studies regarding definitions of long COVID, specific populations at risk, follow-up times, and risk adjustment, Dr. Harding noted.

More high-quality studies across multiple populations and settings are needed to determine if diabetes is indeed a risk factor for long COVID, she said.

In the meantime, “careful monitoring of people with diabetes for development of PASC may be advised,” Dr. Harding concluded.
 

Findings support need for screening

“Given the devastating impact of COVID on people with diabetes, it’s important to know what data has been accumulated on long COVID for future research and discoveries in this area,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. “The more information we have, the better we can understand the implications.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

Dr. Gabbay said he was surprised by the current study findings. “We know very little on this subject, so yes, I am surprised to see just how significant the risk of long COVID for people with diabetes seems to be, but clearly, more research needs to be done to understand long COVID,” he emphasized.

The take-home message for clinicians is the importance of screening patients for PASC; also “ask your patients if they had COVID, to better understand any symptoms they might have that could be related to PACS,” he noted. 

“It is crucial that we confirm these results and then look at risk factors in people with diabetes that might explain who is at highest risk and ultimately understand the causes and potential cure,” Dr. Gabbay added.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Harding and Dr. Gabbay had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.

Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Yuri Nunes / EyeEm / Getty Images

In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).

Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.

The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).

The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.

A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.

Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)

“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.

The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.

“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.

Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.

Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
 

Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise

“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.

“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.

“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”

The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.

As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.

The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.

NEW ORLEANS – Open-source automated insulin delivery systems appear to be both effective and safe in adults and children, new research finds.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) system, also known as closed-loop systems or an artificial pancreas, link an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an algorithm that automatically adjusts insulin delivery to optimize glycemic control.

Prior to the availability of commercial AID systems, Dana Lewis, a patient with type 1 diabetes, and her partner codeveloped an algorithm that could link older versions of an insulin pump and CGM.

In 2015, they made the code and all related materials open-source, so that anyone who wanted to create their own AID system could do so. Today thousands of people worldwide with type 1 diabetes are using the systems, which are sometimes called “do-it-yourself (DIY)” AID systems although the approach has been community based.  

AID systems are not approved by any regulatory body, and despite several nonrandomized studies demonstrating their effectiveness and safety, there is still concern among some health professionals about their safety. In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of any nonapproved devices or algorithms. (Now, though, at least one open-source AID system algorithm is under FDA review.)

Aimed at addressing those concerns, CREATE (Community Derived Automated Insulin Delivery) is the first randomized controlled clinical trial to compare an open-source AID system to insulin pump therapy and CGM (without any communication between the two) in patients with type 1 diabetes, most of whom were naive to AID systems.

Doctors uncomfortable with open source; study provides reassurance

The findings were presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions by Martin I. de Bock, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist and senior lecturer at the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

The study compared the most commonly used open-source AID system (using the OpenAPS algorithm from a version of AndroidAPS implemented in a smartphone with the DANA-i insulin pump and Dexcom G6 CGM) to any insulin pump plus CGM as a comparator group.

The open-source AID system led to a significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c with no major safety issues.

“The acceptance [among clinicians] of open-source systems is diverse and complicated, [with varying] personal comfort levels of seeing someone using an AID system that has no regulatory approval,” Dr. de Bock told this news organization.  

“This is one of the reasons that it was so important to conduct the CREATE trial for the many thousands of open-source AID users. Given that the trial demonstrated safety and efficacy using the most robust scientific methodology available – a long-term randomized controlled trial – it may go some way to provide assurance for providers when they are seeing people using an open-source automated system,” he said.

Asked for comment, session moderator Diana Isaacs, PharmD, CDCES, an endocrine clinical pharmacist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization: “There has been concern that these systems aren’t safe, so showing the safety is important. I think people deserve choice. As long as they’re safe, patients should be able to use what they want to use, and we should support them.”

Dr. Isaacs pointed out that an advantage of open-source systems over current commercial AIDs for patients is the ability to customize glucose targets, but in CREATE, those targets were established in the protocol by the investigators.

“I think it’s nice having the data, although in the trial they had specific requirements. They had a target range and active insulin time that they were recommending. So it’s a little different than true DIY where you don’t really have those guidelines you have to follow. It is exciting, it’s very interesting, but I wouldn’t say it’s a true mirror of the real world.”
 

Open-source systems improved time-in-range, no safety issues

For the CREATE study, 100 participants were enrolled, including 50 children aged 7-15 years and 50 adults aged 16-70 years. All participants had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months. Most of the children and about two-thirds of the adults were also using CGMs, but just 6% of the children and 18% of the adults had prior experience with AID systems.

Baseline A1c in children was 7.5% and in adults was 7.7%.

After a 4-week run-in, all patients were randomized to the open-source AID or insulin pump plus CGM for 6 months.

The final group analyzed consisted of 42 patients in the open-source AID group and 53 patients in the comparator group.

The primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference in percent time-in-range (glucose of 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of the 6-month trial, showed a significant difference of 14% (P < .001) with open-source AID compared with pump plus CGM only.

Time-in-range in the open-source AID group rose from 61.2% to 71.2%, while it actually dropped slightly in the comparator group, from 57.7% to 54.5%.

The proportion of patients achieving time-in-range greater than 70% with open-source AID was 60% versus just 15% with pump plus CGM.

Glycemic improvements with open-source AID were significant for adults and children and were greater for those with higher baseline A1c levels. The effect was immediate and sustained throughout the study period, “which is super-pleasing, because there was a worry that the technical burden of open source might be [leading to] dropout, but we didn’t see that. It was sustained right through to the end of the trial,” Dr. de Bock commented.

Hypoglycemic rates didn’t differ between groups, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
 

No more waiting: What is the future of open-source AID?

When the open-source APS was first developed, users coined the motto: “We are not waiting.” But now that the “wait” is over and several commercial AIDs have been approved by regulatory bodies, with others still in the pipeline, will people still use open-source systems?

There are no current data on people moving from DIY to commercial systems. However, Dr. de Bock said, “For most who undertook an open-source option, the precision of the settings that they can use and enjoy would mean that most would likely stick to their open source.”

Dr. Isaacs agrees: “I actually don’t think it’s going to go away in the near future, because the FDA has very specific criteria for where these [formally approved] devices can be in terms of their target ranges and requirements versus with open source you can really customize. So I still think there’s going to be a subset of people who want that customization, who want the lower targets.”

Dana Lewis, the originator of the DIY system and a CREATE coauthor, told this news organization: “I don’t believe there has been a fall-off, and in fact, I think open-source AID has continued to have ongoing uptake as awareness increases about options and as more pumps and CGMs become interoperable with various open-source AID choices.”

“I think uptake increasing is also influenced by the fact that in places like Europe, Asia, and Australia there are in-warranty on-the-market pumps that are compatible and interoperable with open-source AID. I think awareness of AID overall increases uptake of commercial and open source alike,” she said.

“Clinicians, as emphasized in recent position statements, must maintain support of the person with diabetes, irrespective of the mode of treatment they are on. ... Health care providers should be encouraged to learn from the experiences of the people who have stuck with open-source AID or switched, so that they can inform themselves of the relative strengths and benefits of each system,” Dr. de Bock advised.

Ms. Lewis noted: “We are seeing increasing awareness and comfort in endocrinologists from the community perspective, and we do hope that this study helps increase conversation and awareness of the safety and efficacy of open-source AID systems as an option for people with diabetes.”

In fact, the team published an article specifically about clinicians’ experience in CREATE. “The learning curve is similar across AID technology,” she observed.  

Findings of a 6-month continuation phase of CREATE, in which all participants used the open-source AID, are scheduled to be presented in September at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, with hardware support from SOOIL Developments, South Korea; Dexcom; and Vodafone New Zealand. Dr. de Bock has reported receiving honoraria and/or research funding from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Lilly, Ypsomed, and Dexcom. Dr. Isaacs has reported serving as a consultant for LifeScan, Lilly, and Insulet, and as a speaker for Dexcom, Medtronic, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Ms. Lewis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Open-source automated insulin delivery systems appear to be both effective and safe in adults and children, new research finds.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) system, also known as closed-loop systems or an artificial pancreas, link an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an algorithm that automatically adjusts insulin delivery to optimize glycemic control.

Prior to the availability of commercial AID systems, Dana Lewis, a patient with type 1 diabetes, and her partner codeveloped an algorithm that could link older versions of an insulin pump and CGM.

In 2015, they made the code and all related materials open-source, so that anyone who wanted to create their own AID system could do so. Today thousands of people worldwide with type 1 diabetes are using the systems, which are sometimes called “do-it-yourself (DIY)” AID systems although the approach has been community based.  

AID systems are not approved by any regulatory body, and despite several nonrandomized studies demonstrating their effectiveness and safety, there is still concern among some health professionals about their safety. In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of any nonapproved devices or algorithms. (Now, though, at least one open-source AID system algorithm is under FDA review.)

Aimed at addressing those concerns, CREATE (Community Derived Automated Insulin Delivery) is the first randomized controlled clinical trial to compare an open-source AID system to insulin pump therapy and CGM (without any communication between the two) in patients with type 1 diabetes, most of whom were naive to AID systems.

Doctors uncomfortable with open source; study provides reassurance

The findings were presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions by Martin I. de Bock, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist and senior lecturer at the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

The study compared the most commonly used open-source AID system (using the OpenAPS algorithm from a version of AndroidAPS implemented in a smartphone with the DANA-i insulin pump and Dexcom G6 CGM) to any insulin pump plus CGM as a comparator group.

The open-source AID system led to a significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c with no major safety issues.

“The acceptance [among clinicians] of open-source systems is diverse and complicated, [with varying] personal comfort levels of seeing someone using an AID system that has no regulatory approval,” Dr. de Bock told this news organization.  

“This is one of the reasons that it was so important to conduct the CREATE trial for the many thousands of open-source AID users. Given that the trial demonstrated safety and efficacy using the most robust scientific methodology available – a long-term randomized controlled trial – it may go some way to provide assurance for providers when they are seeing people using an open-source automated system,” he said.

Asked for comment, session moderator Diana Isaacs, PharmD, CDCES, an endocrine clinical pharmacist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization: “There has been concern that these systems aren’t safe, so showing the safety is important. I think people deserve choice. As long as they’re safe, patients should be able to use what they want to use, and we should support them.”

Dr. Isaacs pointed out that an advantage of open-source systems over current commercial AIDs for patients is the ability to customize glucose targets, but in CREATE, those targets were established in the protocol by the investigators.

“I think it’s nice having the data, although in the trial they had specific requirements. They had a target range and active insulin time that they were recommending. So it’s a little different than true DIY where you don’t really have those guidelines you have to follow. It is exciting, it’s very interesting, but I wouldn’t say it’s a true mirror of the real world.”
 

Open-source systems improved time-in-range, no safety issues

For the CREATE study, 100 participants were enrolled, including 50 children aged 7-15 years and 50 adults aged 16-70 years. All participants had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months. Most of the children and about two-thirds of the adults were also using CGMs, but just 6% of the children and 18% of the adults had prior experience with AID systems.

Baseline A1c in children was 7.5% and in adults was 7.7%.

After a 4-week run-in, all patients were randomized to the open-source AID or insulin pump plus CGM for 6 months.

The final group analyzed consisted of 42 patients in the open-source AID group and 53 patients in the comparator group.

The primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference in percent time-in-range (glucose of 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of the 6-month trial, showed a significant difference of 14% (P < .001) with open-source AID compared with pump plus CGM only.

Time-in-range in the open-source AID group rose from 61.2% to 71.2%, while it actually dropped slightly in the comparator group, from 57.7% to 54.5%.

The proportion of patients achieving time-in-range greater than 70% with open-source AID was 60% versus just 15% with pump plus CGM.

Glycemic improvements with open-source AID were significant for adults and children and were greater for those with higher baseline A1c levels. The effect was immediate and sustained throughout the study period, “which is super-pleasing, because there was a worry that the technical burden of open source might be [leading to] dropout, but we didn’t see that. It was sustained right through to the end of the trial,” Dr. de Bock commented.

Hypoglycemic rates didn’t differ between groups, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
 

No more waiting: What is the future of open-source AID?

When the open-source APS was first developed, users coined the motto: “We are not waiting.” But now that the “wait” is over and several commercial AIDs have been approved by regulatory bodies, with others still in the pipeline, will people still use open-source systems?

There are no current data on people moving from DIY to commercial systems. However, Dr. de Bock said, “For most who undertook an open-source option, the precision of the settings that they can use and enjoy would mean that most would likely stick to their open source.”

Dr. Isaacs agrees: “I actually don’t think it’s going to go away in the near future, because the FDA has very specific criteria for where these [formally approved] devices can be in terms of their target ranges and requirements versus with open source you can really customize. So I still think there’s going to be a subset of people who want that customization, who want the lower targets.”

Dana Lewis, the originator of the DIY system and a CREATE coauthor, told this news organization: “I don’t believe there has been a fall-off, and in fact, I think open-source AID has continued to have ongoing uptake as awareness increases about options and as more pumps and CGMs become interoperable with various open-source AID choices.”

“I think uptake increasing is also influenced by the fact that in places like Europe, Asia, and Australia there are in-warranty on-the-market pumps that are compatible and interoperable with open-source AID. I think awareness of AID overall increases uptake of commercial and open source alike,” she said.

“Clinicians, as emphasized in recent position statements, must maintain support of the person with diabetes, irrespective of the mode of treatment they are on. ... Health care providers should be encouraged to learn from the experiences of the people who have stuck with open-source AID or switched, so that they can inform themselves of the relative strengths and benefits of each system,” Dr. de Bock advised.

Ms. Lewis noted: “We are seeing increasing awareness and comfort in endocrinologists from the community perspective, and we do hope that this study helps increase conversation and awareness of the safety and efficacy of open-source AID systems as an option for people with diabetes.”

In fact, the team published an article specifically about clinicians’ experience in CREATE. “The learning curve is similar across AID technology,” she observed.  

Findings of a 6-month continuation phase of CREATE, in which all participants used the open-source AID, are scheduled to be presented in September at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, with hardware support from SOOIL Developments, South Korea; Dexcom; and Vodafone New Zealand. Dr. de Bock has reported receiving honoraria and/or research funding from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Lilly, Ypsomed, and Dexcom. Dr. Isaacs has reported serving as a consultant for LifeScan, Lilly, and Insulet, and as a speaker for Dexcom, Medtronic, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Ms. Lewis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Open-source automated insulin delivery systems appear to be both effective and safe in adults and children, new research finds.

Automated insulin delivery (AID) system, also known as closed-loop systems or an artificial pancreas, link an insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an algorithm that automatically adjusts insulin delivery to optimize glycemic control.

Prior to the availability of commercial AID systems, Dana Lewis, a patient with type 1 diabetes, and her partner codeveloped an algorithm that could link older versions of an insulin pump and CGM.

In 2015, they made the code and all related materials open-source, so that anyone who wanted to create their own AID system could do so. Today thousands of people worldwide with type 1 diabetes are using the systems, which are sometimes called “do-it-yourself (DIY)” AID systems although the approach has been community based.  

AID systems are not approved by any regulatory body, and despite several nonrandomized studies demonstrating their effectiveness and safety, there is still concern among some health professionals about their safety. In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of any nonapproved devices or algorithms. (Now, though, at least one open-source AID system algorithm is under FDA review.)

Aimed at addressing those concerns, CREATE (Community Derived Automated Insulin Delivery) is the first randomized controlled clinical trial to compare an open-source AID system to insulin pump therapy and CGM (without any communication between the two) in patients with type 1 diabetes, most of whom were naive to AID systems.

Doctors uncomfortable with open source; study provides reassurance

The findings were presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions by Martin I. de Bock, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist and senior lecturer at the University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

The study compared the most commonly used open-source AID system (using the OpenAPS algorithm from a version of AndroidAPS implemented in a smartphone with the DANA-i insulin pump and Dexcom G6 CGM) to any insulin pump plus CGM as a comparator group.

The open-source AID system led to a significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c with no major safety issues.

“The acceptance [among clinicians] of open-source systems is diverse and complicated, [with varying] personal comfort levels of seeing someone using an AID system that has no regulatory approval,” Dr. de Bock told this news organization.  

“This is one of the reasons that it was so important to conduct the CREATE trial for the many thousands of open-source AID users. Given that the trial demonstrated safety and efficacy using the most robust scientific methodology available – a long-term randomized controlled trial – it may go some way to provide assurance for providers when they are seeing people using an open-source automated system,” he said.

Asked for comment, session moderator Diana Isaacs, PharmD, CDCES, an endocrine clinical pharmacist at the Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization: “There has been concern that these systems aren’t safe, so showing the safety is important. I think people deserve choice. As long as they’re safe, patients should be able to use what they want to use, and we should support them.”

Dr. Isaacs pointed out that an advantage of open-source systems over current commercial AIDs for patients is the ability to customize glucose targets, but in CREATE, those targets were established in the protocol by the investigators.

“I think it’s nice having the data, although in the trial they had specific requirements. They had a target range and active insulin time that they were recommending. So it’s a little different than true DIY where you don’t really have those guidelines you have to follow. It is exciting, it’s very interesting, but I wouldn’t say it’s a true mirror of the real world.”
 

Open-source systems improved time-in-range, no safety issues

For the CREATE study, 100 participants were enrolled, including 50 children aged 7-15 years and 50 adults aged 16-70 years. All participants had been using insulin pumps for at least 6 months. Most of the children and about two-thirds of the adults were also using CGMs, but just 6% of the children and 18% of the adults had prior experience with AID systems.

Baseline A1c in children was 7.5% and in adults was 7.7%.

After a 4-week run-in, all patients were randomized to the open-source AID or insulin pump plus CGM for 6 months.

The final group analyzed consisted of 42 patients in the open-source AID group and 53 patients in the comparator group.

The primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference in percent time-in-range (glucose of 70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of the 6-month trial, showed a significant difference of 14% (P < .001) with open-source AID compared with pump plus CGM only.

Time-in-range in the open-source AID group rose from 61.2% to 71.2%, while it actually dropped slightly in the comparator group, from 57.7% to 54.5%.

The proportion of patients achieving time-in-range greater than 70% with open-source AID was 60% versus just 15% with pump plus CGM.

Glycemic improvements with open-source AID were significant for adults and children and were greater for those with higher baseline A1c levels. The effect was immediate and sustained throughout the study period, “which is super-pleasing, because there was a worry that the technical burden of open source might be [leading to] dropout, but we didn’t see that. It was sustained right through to the end of the trial,” Dr. de Bock commented.

Hypoglycemic rates didn’t differ between groups, and there were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
 

No more waiting: What is the future of open-source AID?

When the open-source APS was first developed, users coined the motto: “We are not waiting.” But now that the “wait” is over and several commercial AIDs have been approved by regulatory bodies, with others still in the pipeline, will people still use open-source systems?

There are no current data on people moving from DIY to commercial systems. However, Dr. de Bock said, “For most who undertook an open-source option, the precision of the settings that they can use and enjoy would mean that most would likely stick to their open source.”

Dr. Isaacs agrees: “I actually don’t think it’s going to go away in the near future, because the FDA has very specific criteria for where these [formally approved] devices can be in terms of their target ranges and requirements versus with open source you can really customize. So I still think there’s going to be a subset of people who want that customization, who want the lower targets.”

Dana Lewis, the originator of the DIY system and a CREATE coauthor, told this news organization: “I don’t believe there has been a fall-off, and in fact, I think open-source AID has continued to have ongoing uptake as awareness increases about options and as more pumps and CGMs become interoperable with various open-source AID choices.”

“I think uptake increasing is also influenced by the fact that in places like Europe, Asia, and Australia there are in-warranty on-the-market pumps that are compatible and interoperable with open-source AID. I think awareness of AID overall increases uptake of commercial and open source alike,” she said.

“Clinicians, as emphasized in recent position statements, must maintain support of the person with diabetes, irrespective of the mode of treatment they are on. ... Health care providers should be encouraged to learn from the experiences of the people who have stuck with open-source AID or switched, so that they can inform themselves of the relative strengths and benefits of each system,” Dr. de Bock advised.

Ms. Lewis noted: “We are seeing increasing awareness and comfort in endocrinologists from the community perspective, and we do hope that this study helps increase conversation and awareness of the safety and efficacy of open-source AID systems as an option for people with diabetes.”

In fact, the team published an article specifically about clinicians’ experience in CREATE. “The learning curve is similar across AID technology,” she observed.  

Findings of a 6-month continuation phase of CREATE, in which all participants used the open-source AID, are scheduled to be presented in September at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.

The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, with hardware support from SOOIL Developments, South Korea; Dexcom; and Vodafone New Zealand. Dr. de Bock has reported receiving honoraria and/or research funding from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer, Medtronic, Lilly, Ypsomed, and Dexcom. Dr. Isaacs has reported serving as a consultant for LifeScan, Lilly, and Insulet, and as a speaker for Dexcom, Medtronic, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Ms. Lewis has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Prediabetes is not only a predictor of diabetes and the cardiovascular complications that ensue, but it is also a risk factor by itself for myocardial infarction, according to data drawn from almost 1.8 million patients hospitalized for MI.

“Our study serves as a wakeup call for clinicians and patients to shift the focus to preventing prediabetes, and not just diabetes, said Geethika Thota, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

There are plenty of data suggesting that prediabetes places patients on a trajectory toward cardiovascular disease. In a meta-analysis of 129 studies published 2 years ago, prediabetes was not only associated with a statistically significant 16% increase in coronary heart disease, but also a 13% increased risk of all-cause mortality relative to those with normoglycemia.
 

Data drawn from 1.8 million patients

In this study, 1,794,149 weighted patient hospitalizations for MI were drawn from the National Inpatient Sample database. Excluding patients who eventually developed diabetes, roughly 1% of these patients had a history of prediabetes in the past, according to a search of ICD-10 codes.

Before adjustment for other risk factors, prediabetes was linked to a greater than 40% increased odds of MI (odds ratio, 1.41; P < .01). After adjustment for a large array of known MI risk factors – including prior history of MI, dyslipidemia, hypertension, nicotine dependence, and obesity – prediabetes remained an independent risk factor, corresponding with a 25% increased risk of MI (OR, 1.25; P < .01).

A history of prediabetes was also an independent risk factor for percutaneous intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, with increased risk of 45% and 95%, respectively.

As a retrospective study looking at prediabetes as a risk factor in those who already had a MI, it is possible that not all patients with prediabetes were properly coded, but Dr. Thota said that was unlikely to have been an issue of sufficient magnitude to have affected the major conclusions.
 

Relevance seen for community care

Although the study was drawn from hospitalized patients, its relevance is for the community setting, where screening and intervention for prediabetes has the potential to alter the risk, according to Dr. Thota.

Most clinicians are likely aware of the value of screening for prediabetes, which was defined in this study as a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, but Dr. Thota suggested that many might not fully grasp the full scope of goals. Early detection and prevention will prevent diabetes and, by extension, cardiovascular disease, but her data suggest that control of prediabetes with lower cardiovascular risk by a more direct route.

“Despite mounting evidence, many clinicians are unaware that prediabetes is also a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Thota, an internal medicine resident at Saint Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, N.J.

Like diabetes, the prevalence of prediabetes is growing rapidly, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control that Dr. Thota cited. In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 38% of the adult population have prediabetes. By 2030, one model predicts a further 25% growth.

Screening for hyperglycemia is part of routine patient evaluations at Dr. Thota’s center. In an interview, she said that once a diagnosis of prediabetes is entered in the electronic medical record, the history is carried forward so that changes in status are continually monitored.
 

Worsening prediabetes should be addressed

“Prediabetes is not treated with medication, at least initially,” Dr. Thota explained. Rather, patients are educated about important lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, that can reverse the diagnosis. However, patients who remain on a path of worsening hyperglycemia are candidates for more intensive lifestyle intervention and might be considered selectively for metformin.

“Early recognition of prediabetes through screening is important,” Dr. Thota emphasized. The benefit for preventing patients from progressing to diabetes is well recognized, but these data provide the basis for incentivizing lifestyle changes in patients with prediabetes by telling them that it can reduce their risk for MI.

These data have an important message, but they are not surprising, according to Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, executive director, interventional cardiovascular programs, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston.

“In fact, in daily practice we see a substantial percentage of patients with MI who have prediabetes that had not been previously recognized or formally diagnosed,” Dr. Bhatt said in an interview.

“Identifying these patients – preferably prior to coming in with cardiovascular complications – is important both to reduce cardiovascular risk but also to try and prevent progression at diabetes,” he added.

Dr. Bhatt went on to say that this large analysis, confirming that prediabetes is independently associated with MI, should prompt clinicians to screen patients rigorously for this condition.

“At a minimum, such patients would be candidates for intensive lifestyle modification aimed at weight loss and treatment of frequent coexistent conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Dr. Thota reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bhatt has financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, many of which make products relevant to the management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

Avexitide (Eiger Biopharmaceuticals), a first-in-class glucagonlike peptide (GLP)–1 receptor blocker, significantly reduced hypoglycemia in patients with refractory postbariatric hypoglycemia, new research finds.  

Postbariatric hypoglycemia is a complication of bariatric surgery that is estimated to occur in about 29%-34% of people who undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and in 11%-23% of those who undergo vertical sleeve gastrectomy. It typically manifests about 1-3 hours after meals and can lead to severe neuroglycopenic symptoms including blurred vision, confusion, drowsiness, and incoordination.

In addition, more than one-third (37%) with the condition have hypoglycemic unawareness. This can lead to seizures in about 59%, loss of consciousness and hospitalization in 50%, motor vehicle accidents, and even death. More than 90% with the condition consider themselves disabled, and 41% report being unable to work.

There are no currently approved medical treatments for postbariatric hypoglycemia. The standard of care is medical nutrition therapy involving a low-carbohydrate diet with carb restriction and small, frequent mixed meals. If this doesn’t work, off-label stepped pharmacotherapy has been tried, including acarbose (Precose), octreotide (Sandostatin), and diazoxide (Proglycem).

But “these are limited by efficacy and tolerability,” said Marilyn Tan, MD, who presented the findings from the phase 2 trial of avexitide at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

In very severe cases, gastrostomy tubes or bypass reversal are options but those lead to weight regain and incomplete efficacy. “Safe, effective, and targeted therapies are needed urgently for postbariatric hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Tan, of the department of endocrinology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The pathophysiology isn’t fully understood, but there appears to be an exaggerated GLP-1 response that leads to abnormal insulin secretion and symptomatic hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. Avexitide (formerly exendin 9-39), blocks the GLP-1 receptor and mitigates the excessive GLP-1 response, she explained.

Asked to comment, session moderator Michelle Van Name, MD, told this news organization, “This is a problem and it’s important for us to understand more about it and to identify different treatment options so these patients can continue to live their full, healthy lives post bariatric surgery.”

And, avexitide also holds potential for treating congenital hyperinsulinism, “which is a very challenging disease to treat in babies,” noted Dr. Van Name, a pediatric endocrinologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Drug reduced all levels of hypoglycemia, across surgery types

The study enrolled 14 women and 2 men with severe refractory postbariatric surgery hypoglycemia despite medical nutrition therapy. A majority (9) had undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 4 had vertical sleeve gastrectomy, 2 gastrectomy, and 1 had Nissen fundoplication. Seven patients (43.7%) had experienced loss of consciousness from hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. None had diabetes.

They were randomly assigned to either subcutaneous 45 mg of avexitide twice daily or 90 mg once daily for 14 days each, with a 2-day washout period followed by a switch to the other dose.

Both doses resulted in significant reductions in hypoglycemia as measured by self–blood glucose monitoring. The once-daily dose reduced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose < 70 mg/dL) by 67.5% and it reduced level 2 (< 54 mg/dL) by 53.3% (P = .0043).

Even greater reductions were seen in severe hypoglycemia (that is, altered mental status/requiring assistance) – by 67.5% for the twice-daily dose (P = .0003) and by 66.1% with the once-daily dose (P = .0003). 

“This is consistent with what we’ve seen in prior avexitide trials,” Dr. Tan noted.

More hypoglycemic events were captured using blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), since it picked up episodes of which the patient was unaware. There were significant reductions in percentage time spent in level 1 and level 2 hypoglycemia, as well as in absolute number of hypoglycemic events over 14 days.

Here, the effect was greater with the once-daily 90 mg dose, with reductions of up to 65% in time spent and number of events, but results for the twice-daily dose were also significant, Dr. Tan said.

The drug was effective across all surgical subtypes. Patients who underwent vertical sleeve gastrectomy/gastrectomy had greater rates of hypoglycemia at baseline and “robust responses to avexitide subcutaneous injections. This supports the critical role of GLP-1,” Dr. Tan said.

There were no severe adverse events. The most commonly reported adverse events were diarrhea, headache, bloating, and injection-site reaction/bruising. All were mild and self-limited and resolved without treatment. No participants withdrew from the study.

Eiger Biopharmaceuticals is currently working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency to design a phase 3 trial.

The study is an investor-initiated trial with funding from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Tan receives research support from Eiger Biopharmaceuticals as a site investigator. Dr. Van Name is an investigator for a trial sponsored by Provention Bio.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.