TBD Meeting (4154-23)

HAMBURG, Germany – Use of some antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs increases the risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), shows the first such analysis of real-world, primary care data.

People with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD have almost three times the risk of SCA if they take antipsychotic medications and nearly double the risk if they take certain antibiotics that prolong the QT interval, notably, macrolides and fluoroquinolones.

“These data show that commonly prescribed drugs - antipsychotic medications, used by about 3% of people with type 2 diabetes, and antibiotics, taken by 5% to 10%, convey an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest in those without a history of cardiovascular disease,” said Peter Harms, MSc, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Another drug associated with an increase in SCA among patients with diabetes was domperidone, an antinausea medication.

“Perhaps these drugs could be avoided in some cases, and GPs should be more aware of the possible consequences of their use,” he added. “If the patient has type 2 diabetes, then maybe it’s better to avoid some of these medications and try and cope without them, or at least find an alternative antibiotic.”

Mr. Harms, an epidemiologist from Amsterdam University Medical Centers, highlighted that their study was unique because the investigators drew upon primary care data. “These data are extensive, and we find a lot of associations which are very real.”

SCA is associated with 50% of all cardiac deaths and accounts for 20% of all mortality in high-income countries. Of those people who experience SCA, 80% of cases prove fatal.

“As the name suggests, it is difficult to predict because it is sudden, especially in people without a cardiovascular disease history,” Mr. Harms pointed out in an interview with this news organization. He highlighted that “around half of those who experience SCA, often between the ages of 40 and 60 years, have never seen a cardiologist, but many do have type 2 diabetes.

“We need to better understand how to recognize people at risk of SCA, know who to watch and how to prevent these events,” he emphasized.

Vladimira Fejfarova, MD, comoderated the session and commented on the study. “From the clinical point of view, it’s necessary to evaluate risk factors that can contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.”

Overall, the researchers found that, among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD, hypoglycemia, severe hypertension, dyslipidemia, and use of QTc-prolonging medications are associated with SCA risk. Among people with type 2 diabetes and CVD, albuminuria and heart failure are associated with SCA risk.

Dr. Fejfarova added: “With type 2 diabetes and also type 1, we need to look more at adverse events, especially when treating infections with macrolides, but also mycotic infections, because antimycotic drugs are known to influence QT intervals that could contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.

“We need to be more cautious with prescribing certain antibiotics that have these side effects in our patients with diabetes,” asserted Dr. Fejfarova, from the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague.
 

Type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of SCA

The researcher decided to investigate the population of people with type 2 diabetes because their risk of SCD is around twice that of those without type 2 diabetes. Because these patients have relatively frequent checkups with general practitioners, Mr. Harms turned to primary care databases that contained comprehensive and relatively routine information on risk indicators.

Longitudinal associations between clinical characteristics of 3,919 patients with type 2 diabetes – both those with and those without a history of CVD – and SCA (a total of 689 patients) were determined.

Cases were found in the AmsteRdam REsuscitation STtudies (ARREST) registry of out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts by emergency medical services in the Dutch region of Noord-Holland from 2010 to 2019. Case patients were matched with up to five control patients. The control group comprised people with type 2 diabetes who had not experienced an SCA. Control patients were sourced from the same primary care practices who were of similar age and sex. Clinical measurements, including blood pressure and blood glucose readings, medication use, and medical history for the 5 years leading up to an SCA, were obtained from general practice records. A multivariable analysis was performed, and results were stratified for people with and for those without a history of CVD.

Of particular interest were drugs that interfere with cardiac function, including some prokinetic, antibiotic, and antipsychotic medications. All of the drugs are known to be associated with a change in QTc prolongation. Examples include domperidone (QTc-prolonging prokinetic), macrolides and fluoroquinolones (QTc-prolonging antibiotics), and haloperidol (a QTc-prolonging antipsychotic).
 

Antibiotic and antipsychotic use might contribute to SCA in T2D

Case patients and control patients were similar in age, hemoglobin A1c level, and other characteristics with the exception that more patients with SCA had a history of CVD (40.0% vs. 29.4%).

“Looking at the associations in the overall population, insulin use was strongly associated with SCA risk [hazard ratio, 2.38] and perhaps this was an indicator of severity of type 2 diabetes,” remarked Mr. Harms. “Also, unsurprisingly, a history of arrhythmia [HR, 1.68] and, more surprisingly, prokinetic drug use [HR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.31], specifically those known for QTc-prolongation, were associated with SCA.”

Among people who had experienced an SCA and who did not have a history of CVD (337 case patients/2,023 control patients), QTc-prolonging antipsychotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.87, and antibiotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.66. A low fasting glucose level (< 4.5 mmol/mol) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.5; severely high systolic blood pressure (> 180 mm Hg) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.21; low HDL cholesterol level, with an HR of 1.35; and high LDL cholesterol level (> 2.6 mmol/L), with an HR of 1.64.

Among people with a history of CVD (352 case patients/1,207 control patients), associations between albuminuria and SCA were moderate (HR, 1.54) and severe (HR, 1.55); heart failure was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.50-2.29).

Comoderator Dr. Fejfarova added that, in addition to the findings from Dr. Harms’ study, other research presented in the same session highlighted the importance of checking patients for the presence of arrhythmias that could lead to the development of atrioventricular blocks, sinus node diseases, and SCA.

Mr. Harms and Dr. Fejfarova have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, Germany – Use of some antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs increases the risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), shows the first such analysis of real-world, primary care data.

People with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD have almost three times the risk of SCA if they take antipsychotic medications and nearly double the risk if they take certain antibiotics that prolong the QT interval, notably, macrolides and fluoroquinolones.

“These data show that commonly prescribed drugs - antipsychotic medications, used by about 3% of people with type 2 diabetes, and antibiotics, taken by 5% to 10%, convey an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest in those without a history of cardiovascular disease,” said Peter Harms, MSc, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Another drug associated with an increase in SCA among patients with diabetes was domperidone, an antinausea medication.

“Perhaps these drugs could be avoided in some cases, and GPs should be more aware of the possible consequences of their use,” he added. “If the patient has type 2 diabetes, then maybe it’s better to avoid some of these medications and try and cope without them, or at least find an alternative antibiotic.”

Mr. Harms, an epidemiologist from Amsterdam University Medical Centers, highlighted that their study was unique because the investigators drew upon primary care data. “These data are extensive, and we find a lot of associations which are very real.”

SCA is associated with 50% of all cardiac deaths and accounts for 20% of all mortality in high-income countries. Of those people who experience SCA, 80% of cases prove fatal.

“As the name suggests, it is difficult to predict because it is sudden, especially in people without a cardiovascular disease history,” Mr. Harms pointed out in an interview with this news organization. He highlighted that “around half of those who experience SCA, often between the ages of 40 and 60 years, have never seen a cardiologist, but many do have type 2 diabetes.

“We need to better understand how to recognize people at risk of SCA, know who to watch and how to prevent these events,” he emphasized.

Vladimira Fejfarova, MD, comoderated the session and commented on the study. “From the clinical point of view, it’s necessary to evaluate risk factors that can contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.”

Overall, the researchers found that, among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD, hypoglycemia, severe hypertension, dyslipidemia, and use of QTc-prolonging medications are associated with SCA risk. Among people with type 2 diabetes and CVD, albuminuria and heart failure are associated with SCA risk.

Dr. Fejfarova added: “With type 2 diabetes and also type 1, we need to look more at adverse events, especially when treating infections with macrolides, but also mycotic infections, because antimycotic drugs are known to influence QT intervals that could contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.

“We need to be more cautious with prescribing certain antibiotics that have these side effects in our patients with diabetes,” asserted Dr. Fejfarova, from the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague.
 

Type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of SCA

The researcher decided to investigate the population of people with type 2 diabetes because their risk of SCD is around twice that of those without type 2 diabetes. Because these patients have relatively frequent checkups with general practitioners, Mr. Harms turned to primary care databases that contained comprehensive and relatively routine information on risk indicators.

Longitudinal associations between clinical characteristics of 3,919 patients with type 2 diabetes – both those with and those without a history of CVD – and SCA (a total of 689 patients) were determined.

Cases were found in the AmsteRdam REsuscitation STtudies (ARREST) registry of out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts by emergency medical services in the Dutch region of Noord-Holland from 2010 to 2019. Case patients were matched with up to five control patients. The control group comprised people with type 2 diabetes who had not experienced an SCA. Control patients were sourced from the same primary care practices who were of similar age and sex. Clinical measurements, including blood pressure and blood glucose readings, medication use, and medical history for the 5 years leading up to an SCA, were obtained from general practice records. A multivariable analysis was performed, and results were stratified for people with and for those without a history of CVD.

Of particular interest were drugs that interfere with cardiac function, including some prokinetic, antibiotic, and antipsychotic medications. All of the drugs are known to be associated with a change in QTc prolongation. Examples include domperidone (QTc-prolonging prokinetic), macrolides and fluoroquinolones (QTc-prolonging antibiotics), and haloperidol (a QTc-prolonging antipsychotic).
 

Antibiotic and antipsychotic use might contribute to SCA in T2D

Case patients and control patients were similar in age, hemoglobin A1c level, and other characteristics with the exception that more patients with SCA had a history of CVD (40.0% vs. 29.4%).

“Looking at the associations in the overall population, insulin use was strongly associated with SCA risk [hazard ratio, 2.38] and perhaps this was an indicator of severity of type 2 diabetes,” remarked Mr. Harms. “Also, unsurprisingly, a history of arrhythmia [HR, 1.68] and, more surprisingly, prokinetic drug use [HR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.31], specifically those known for QTc-prolongation, were associated with SCA.”

Among people who had experienced an SCA and who did not have a history of CVD (337 case patients/2,023 control patients), QTc-prolonging antipsychotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.87, and antibiotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.66. A low fasting glucose level (< 4.5 mmol/mol) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.5; severely high systolic blood pressure (> 180 mm Hg) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.21; low HDL cholesterol level, with an HR of 1.35; and high LDL cholesterol level (> 2.6 mmol/L), with an HR of 1.64.

Among people with a history of CVD (352 case patients/1,207 control patients), associations between albuminuria and SCA were moderate (HR, 1.54) and severe (HR, 1.55); heart failure was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.50-2.29).

Comoderator Dr. Fejfarova added that, in addition to the findings from Dr. Harms’ study, other research presented in the same session highlighted the importance of checking patients for the presence of arrhythmias that could lead to the development of atrioventricular blocks, sinus node diseases, and SCA.

Mr. Harms and Dr. Fejfarova have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, Germany – Use of some antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs increases the risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), shows the first such analysis of real-world, primary care data.

People with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD have almost three times the risk of SCA if they take antipsychotic medications and nearly double the risk if they take certain antibiotics that prolong the QT interval, notably, macrolides and fluoroquinolones.

“These data show that commonly prescribed drugs - antipsychotic medications, used by about 3% of people with type 2 diabetes, and antibiotics, taken by 5% to 10%, convey an increased risk of sudden cardiac arrest in those without a history of cardiovascular disease,” said Peter Harms, MSc, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Another drug associated with an increase in SCA among patients with diabetes was domperidone, an antinausea medication.

“Perhaps these drugs could be avoided in some cases, and GPs should be more aware of the possible consequences of their use,” he added. “If the patient has type 2 diabetes, then maybe it’s better to avoid some of these medications and try and cope without them, or at least find an alternative antibiotic.”

Mr. Harms, an epidemiologist from Amsterdam University Medical Centers, highlighted that their study was unique because the investigators drew upon primary care data. “These data are extensive, and we find a lot of associations which are very real.”

SCA is associated with 50% of all cardiac deaths and accounts for 20% of all mortality in high-income countries. Of those people who experience SCA, 80% of cases prove fatal.

“As the name suggests, it is difficult to predict because it is sudden, especially in people without a cardiovascular disease history,” Mr. Harms pointed out in an interview with this news organization. He highlighted that “around half of those who experience SCA, often between the ages of 40 and 60 years, have never seen a cardiologist, but many do have type 2 diabetes.

“We need to better understand how to recognize people at risk of SCA, know who to watch and how to prevent these events,” he emphasized.

Vladimira Fejfarova, MD, comoderated the session and commented on the study. “From the clinical point of view, it’s necessary to evaluate risk factors that can contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.”

Overall, the researchers found that, among people with type 2 diabetes who do not have a history of CVD, hypoglycemia, severe hypertension, dyslipidemia, and use of QTc-prolonging medications are associated with SCA risk. Among people with type 2 diabetes and CVD, albuminuria and heart failure are associated with SCA risk.

Dr. Fejfarova added: “With type 2 diabetes and also type 1, we need to look more at adverse events, especially when treating infections with macrolides, but also mycotic infections, because antimycotic drugs are known to influence QT intervals that could contribute to sudden cardiac arrest.

“We need to be more cautious with prescribing certain antibiotics that have these side effects in our patients with diabetes,” asserted Dr. Fejfarova, from the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague.
 

Type 2 diabetes doubles the risk of SCA

The researcher decided to investigate the population of people with type 2 diabetes because their risk of SCD is around twice that of those without type 2 diabetes. Because these patients have relatively frequent checkups with general practitioners, Mr. Harms turned to primary care databases that contained comprehensive and relatively routine information on risk indicators.

Longitudinal associations between clinical characteristics of 3,919 patients with type 2 diabetes – both those with and those without a history of CVD – and SCA (a total of 689 patients) were determined.

Cases were found in the AmsteRdam REsuscitation STtudies (ARREST) registry of out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts by emergency medical services in the Dutch region of Noord-Holland from 2010 to 2019. Case patients were matched with up to five control patients. The control group comprised people with type 2 diabetes who had not experienced an SCA. Control patients were sourced from the same primary care practices who were of similar age and sex. Clinical measurements, including blood pressure and blood glucose readings, medication use, and medical history for the 5 years leading up to an SCA, were obtained from general practice records. A multivariable analysis was performed, and results were stratified for people with and for those without a history of CVD.

Of particular interest were drugs that interfere with cardiac function, including some prokinetic, antibiotic, and antipsychotic medications. All of the drugs are known to be associated with a change in QTc prolongation. Examples include domperidone (QTc-prolonging prokinetic), macrolides and fluoroquinolones (QTc-prolonging antibiotics), and haloperidol (a QTc-prolonging antipsychotic).
 

Antibiotic and antipsychotic use might contribute to SCA in T2D

Case patients and control patients were similar in age, hemoglobin A1c level, and other characteristics with the exception that more patients with SCA had a history of CVD (40.0% vs. 29.4%).

“Looking at the associations in the overall population, insulin use was strongly associated with SCA risk [hazard ratio, 2.38] and perhaps this was an indicator of severity of type 2 diabetes,” remarked Mr. Harms. “Also, unsurprisingly, a history of arrhythmia [HR, 1.68] and, more surprisingly, prokinetic drug use [HR, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.31], specifically those known for QTc-prolongation, were associated with SCA.”

Among people who had experienced an SCA and who did not have a history of CVD (337 case patients/2,023 control patients), QTc-prolonging antipsychotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.87, and antibiotic medication use was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.66. A low fasting glucose level (< 4.5 mmol/mol) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.5; severely high systolic blood pressure (> 180 mm Hg) was associated with SCA at an HR of 2.21; low HDL cholesterol level, with an HR of 1.35; and high LDL cholesterol level (> 2.6 mmol/L), with an HR of 1.64.

Among people with a history of CVD (352 case patients/1,207 control patients), associations between albuminuria and SCA were moderate (HR, 1.54) and severe (HR, 1.55); heart failure was associated with SCA at an HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.50-2.29).

Comoderator Dr. Fejfarova added that, in addition to the findings from Dr. Harms’ study, other research presented in the same session highlighted the importance of checking patients for the presence of arrhythmias that could lead to the development of atrioventricular blocks, sinus node diseases, and SCA.

Mr. Harms and Dr. Fejfarova have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.