Search

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) causes substantial global morbidity and increases cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Unlike other chronic diseases with established strategies for screening, there has been no consensus on whether health systems and governments should prioritize early identification and intervention for CKD. Guidelines on evaluating and managing early CKD are available but have not been universally adopted in the absence of incentives or quality measures for prioritizing CKD care. The burden of CKD falls disproportionately upon persons with lower socioeconomic status, who have a higher prevalence of CKD, limited access to treatment, and poorer outcomes. Therefore, identifying and treating CKD at the earliest stages is an equity imperative. In 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a controversies conference entitled "Early Identification and Intervention in CKD." Participants identified strategies for screening, risk stratification, and treatment for early CKD and the key health system and economic factors for implementing these processes. A consensus emerged that CKD screening coupled with risk stratification and treatment should be implemented immediately for high-risk persons and that this should ideally occur in primary or community care settings with tailoring to the local context.

The global PIONEER program investigated the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to once-daily oral semaglutide (3, 7 or 14 mg, or flexibly dosed [flex]), placebo, or active comparator (empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or liraglutide 1.8 mg). This exploratory subgroup analysis evaluated the effect of race on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) reductions at the end of treatment (week 26, 52 or 78). Data were analyzed from PIONEER 1-5, 7 and 8 by race (White, Asian, Black/African American). Baseline characteristics were generally similar across subgroups except for BW, which was lower in Asian patients. Generally, greater HbA1c reductions were observed with oral semaglutide 14 mg/flex vs. comparators across subgroups (Table). In PIONEER 1, 4 and 8, there was a significant interaction between treatment and race, with greater HbA1c reductions and estimated treatment differences in Asian patients than in other subgroups (Table). Overall, BW reductions were greater for oral semaglutide vs. comparators, regardless of subgroup and without significant interactions between treatment and race. Our findings in this exploratory subgroup analysis suggest that, in some PIONEER trials, Asian patients achieve greater HbA1c reductions than other race groups when treated with oral semaglutide. Disclosure C. Desouza: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Novo Nordisk A/S. A. Amod: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Consultant; Self; Servier. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. K. Kallenbach: None. P.J. Lin: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bausch + Lomb, Bayer Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Other Relationship; Self; Elsevier. M. Abildlund Nielsen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Stock/Shareholder; Spouse/Partner; Novo Nordisk A/S. R. Sørrig: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. E. Montanya: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Employee; Spouse/Partner; Almirall. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S. Funding Novo Nordisk A/S

Aim To explore reasons behind treatment inertia in current approaches to early cardiorenal risk management in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A global, web-based, quantitative panel survey of primary care physicians (PCPs) and primary care diabetes specialists treating people living with T2D. The questions covered current management of T2D, particularly the use of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as second-/third-line therapies. Results Of 1677 respondents from 18 countries who completed the survey, 73.4% were responsible for second-/third-line therapy initiation. Two thirds had modified treatment decisions based on recent cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Respondents cited restricted access to therapies and limits on regular appointments as the greatest barriers to second-/third-line therapy prescription. Although 81.6% agreed that early intensification to second-/third-line therapies is associated with clinical benefits, 46.1% of respondents still reserve these for later lines of therapy, and 23.8% would not consider changing therapeutic approach in patients with well-controlled T2D but increasing cardiovascular risk. Conclusions Substantial barriers still prevent optimization of primary setting T2D patient care. Education programs which enable PCPs to translate CVOT evidence into clinical benefits for patients with T2D could address many of the remaining knowledge gaps identified.