Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Certain Diabetes Medicine May Raise Risk for Amputation

French researchers recently discovered that certain diabetes medicines known as diuretics may raise the risk for amputation. This conclusion was obtained after an analysis of approximately 1,500 patients with type 2 diabetes. After seven years, 13% of participants who used diuretics had gone through an amputation or other procedure of the lower leg. This was compared to 7% of those who didn’t take diuretics. Likewise, taking diuretics was found to have a 75% increased risk of having an amputation or a bypass or angioplasty.

Based on these findings, researchers from Bichat Hospital in Paris warn that diuretics be used cautiously in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, further studies are needed to confirm these results.

These findings were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting on October 1, 2018.

QVC Customer Care
Posts: 1,973
Registered: ‎06-14-2015

This post has been removed by QVC because of copyright seal

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

 

  • Jan. 17, 2019
  •  
  •  

 

An advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration split evenly on Thursday over whether the agency should approve the first oral medication to treat Type 1 diabetes.

The committee voted 8-8, leaving it up to the agency to decide by the end of March whether the drug, sotagliflozin, should reach the market.

The drug, which is used along with insulin, is being developed by the drug makers Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, who plan to sell it under the brand name Zynquista. It carries a higher risk for developing diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening complication that happens when the body doesn’t get enough insulin, which led some of the reviewers to vote against it.

The companies said they would continue work with the F.D.A. throughout the review process.

The drug is a once-daily pill designed to help people manage their blood sugar levels. In Type 1 diabetes — also known as juvenile diabetes because it is often diagnosed in childhood — the body does not produce insulin, so people with the disease must monitor their blood sugar and take insulin. But relying on external insulin can lead the body’s blood sugar levels to rise and fall, which is uncomfortable and can lead to health problems.

 
Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Scientists working to develop more effective treatments for diabetes are turning to stem cells. Such cells can be transformed into cells that produce insulin, the hormone that controls blood sugar.

 

But there's a major challenge: the amount of insulin produced by theses cells is difficult to control.

Now, by tweaking the recipe for coaxing human stem cells into insulin-secreting beta cells, a team of researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has shown that the resulting cells are more responsive to fluctuating glucose levels in the blood.

When they transplanted the beta cells into mice that could not make insulin, the new cells began secreting insulin within a few days, and they continued to control blood sugar in the animals for months.

The new study is published Jan. 17 in the journal Stem Cell Reports.

"We've been able to overcome a major weakness in the way these cells previously had been developed. The new insulin-producing cells react more quickly and appropriately when they encounter glucose," said principal investigator Jeffrey R. Millman, Ph.D., an assistant professor of medicine and of biomedical engineering. "The cells behave much more like beta cells in people who don't have diabetes."

The researchers now believe it may be time to evaluate whether the same stem-cell approach could produce insulin and effectively control blood sugar in people.

Millman was a part of a research team at Harvard that, in 2014, converted skin cells into stem cells and, in 2016, did the same thing with skin cells from a patient with diabetes. Each time, the stem cells were then treated with various growth factors to coax them into insulin-secreting beta cells. The beta cells, however, didn't work as well as the researchers had hoped.

"Previously, the beta cells we manufactured could secrete insulin in response to glucose, but they were more like fire hydrants, either making a lot of insulin or none at all," he said. "The new cells are more sensitive and secrete insulin that better corresponds to the glucose levels."

For this study, Millman's laboratory still grew beta cells from human stem cells, but they made numerous changes to the "recipe" for producing insulin-producing beta cells, treating the cells with different factors at different times as they grew and developed to help the cells mature and function more effectively.

After that process was complete, the researchers transplanted the beta cells into diabetic mice with suppressed immune systems so that they wouldn't reject the human cells. Those transplanted cells produced insulin at levels that effectively controlled blood sugar in the mice, functionally curing their diabetes for several months, which, for most of the mice in the study, was about the length of their lives.

As laboratory researcher rather than a clinician, Millman said he can't predict exactly when such cells may be ready for human trials but believes there are at least two ways that stem cell-derived beta cells could be tested in human patients.

"The first would be to encapsulate the cells in something like a gel—with pores small enough to prevent immune cells from getting in but large enough to allow insulin to get out," he said. "Another idea would be to use gene-editing tools to alter the genes of beta cells in ways that would allow them to 'hide' from the immune system after implantation."

Millman said that if stem cell-derived beta cells are proven safe and effective for people with diabetes, his method of manufacturing the cells quickly could be ramped up to an industrial scale. In his laboratory alone, his team is able to grow and develop more than a billion beta cells in just a few weeks.


 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

THURSDAY, Jan. 17, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- An experimental drug may help people with type 2 diabetes curb their blood sugar without causing it to drop to dangerously low levels.

Researchers found that the compound -- dubbed TTP399 for now -- improved patients' blood sugar control when it was added to the standard medication metformin for six months.

And it did so without causing hypoglycemia -- blood sugar drops that, if severe, can lead to convulsions or loss of consciousness.



The findings, published Jan. 16 in the journal Science Translational Medicine, come from an earlier "phase 2" trial. And more research is needed before TTP399 can be added to existing  armaments against type 2 diabetes, said senior researcher Carmen Valcarce.

But, she added, the effects seen so far on blood sugar control are comparable to, or even better than, what's seen with current medications for the disease.

Continue Reading Below
you might like



Valcarce is chief scientific officer for vTv Therapeutics, the North Carolina-based company developing TTP399.

Type 2 diabetes affected over 30 million Americans in 2015, according to the American Diabetes Association. It arises when the body can no longer properly use insulin, a hormone that regulates levels of glucose (sugar) in the blood. When blood sugar levels habitually soar, that can take a toll on the body over time -- damaging the blood vessels and heart, nerves, kidneys and eyes.

And while there are medications for type 2 diabetes, there's still a need for additional options, Valcarce said.

"Some people don't respond well to the current medications," she noted. "Some people can't tolerate the side effects."

Dr. Debra Simmons is an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City.


She agreed there's a need for additional diabetes medications that work through actions that are different from available drugs. The specific underlying causes of diabetes vary from person to person, said Simmons.

TTP399 works by activating an enzyme called glucokinase, which acts as a blood sugar "sensor."

Other compounds that target glucokinase have been developed. But they've been stymied by side effects -- not only hypoglycemia, but elevations in triglycerides (a blood fat).

 
art of the problem, according to Valcarce, is that some earlier compounds affected glucokinase in both the liver and the pancreas. And when it's activated in the pancreas, that may cause blood sugar to plummet.

Another issue, Simmons said, is that some compounds disturbed the way glucokinase normally interacts with a protein that regulates it. That seemed to be spurring the rise in triglycerides.

So TTP399 was designed to avoid those problems.

Valcarce's team put it to the test in 190 patients with type 2 diabetes. All were already taking metformin, and some were randomly assigned to add a daily dose of TTP399. The rest of the patients added either inactive placebo pills or a diabetes drug called sitagliptin (Januvia).

After six months, patients on the new compound showed a greater reduction in their A1c level, versus placebo patients. A1c is a measure of a person's average blood sugar level over the past two to three months.

There were no cases of serious blood sugar drops, the researchers said, and no negative effects on triglycerides.

Larger, longer-term studies are still needed, Simmons said, to see how the drug's effectiveness and safety hold up.

Simmons pointed to the bigger picture: That researchers are studying the underpinnings of diabetes and trying to develop new treatment options.

But, she stressed, "diet and exercise are always going to be important in managing diabetes."

WebMD News from HealthDay
Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

This is not a thread about politics, it is about the latest health concerns for diabetics, and the latest news

 

It is important, to many of us to ,be able to know this  stuff. So ,please do not post material ,that endangers  this thread...

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

A new experimental dru,g shows promise,  for working without upsetting the digestion. It is copy righted ,so, I will provide the link

 

https://www.upi.com/Experimental-diabetes-drug-better-than-current-meds-trial-results-suggest/400154...

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Lisa Crook was lucky. She saved $800 last year after her insurance company started covering a new, less expensive insulin called Basaglar that was virtually identical to the brand she had used for years.

 

The list price for Lantus, a long-acting insulin made by Sanofi that she injected once a day, had nearly quadrupled over a decade.

With Basaglar, “I’ve never had my insulin cost drop so significantly,” said Crook, a legal assistant in Dallas who has Type 1 diabetes.

 

But many people with diabetes can’t get the deal Crook got. In a practice that policy experts say smothers competition and keeps prices high, drug companies routinely make hidden pacts with middlemen that effectively block patients from getting cheaper generic medicines.

Such agreements “make it difficult for generics to compete or know what they’re competing against,” said Stacie Dusetzina, an associate professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Here’s how it works: Makers of established brands give volume-based rebates to insurers or intermediaries called pharmacy benefit managers. In return, those middlemen often leave competing generics off the menu of drugs they cover, called a formulary, or they jack up the price for patients. The result is that many can’t get the cheaper drugs unless they shoulder a bigger copay or buy them with no help from insurance.

Brand-drug sellers “pay for position” on the formulary, said Michael Rea, CEO of Rx Savings Solutions, which helps health plans and employers manage pharma costs. “In this country, the most cost-effective drugs don’t necessarily mean anyone will have access to them … [Companies with] the deepest pockets win.”

This so-called rebate trap joins a long history of efforts by makers of brand-name drugs to stifle generics, including protecting drugs with multiple layers of dubious patents, “pay for delay” deals to keep generics off the market and withholding key ingredients needed for generic production, critics say.

Because rebate contracts are secret, nobody knows the full extent of the practice nor how much it costs the health system in unrealized savings.

“The deals between the drug companies and the PBM middle players are guarded as fiercely as Fort Knox,” said Robin Feldman, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, who studies pharma policy. “No one gets to see them.”

But new research is turning up plenty of evidence of rebates distorting the market, such as numerous instances of effective, less expensive generics missing from formularies or patients burdened with higher out-of-pocket costs for generic drugs.

In unpublished research, Dusetzina found that only 17 percent of Medicare plans for seniors covered Basaglar, the biosimilar launched by Eli Lilly two years ago. Nearly all of them covered brand-name Lantus, sold by Sanofi, as of early last year.

Her research suggests rebates from Sanofi might have induced insurers to leave lower-priced Basaglar off their formularies, Dusetzina said.

Sanofi works with insurers and pharmacy benefit managers “to negotiate access for patients to our portfolio of products including Lantus,” said company spokesman Jon Florio, declining to disclose specifics.

Medicare plans covering Lantus but not Basaglar include numerous offerings from Anthem, the biggest for-profit, Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurer.

“After evaluating the total cost impact on consumers, taxpayers and the government, we chose to cover the brand drug, Lantus, over the biosimilar, Basaglar,” said Anthem spokeswoman Lori McLaughlin.

Replacement versions of complex drugs often made from living cells are called biosimilars, not generics. Basaglar is considered clinically equivalent to Lantus but, because of a legal wrinkle, won’t technically be considered a biosimilar by regulators until 2020.

Merck scrapped its own biosimilar version of Lantus last fall, despite receiving tentative approval by the Food and Drug Administration, after “assessing … the market environment,” the company said.

Coverage of Lilly’s Basaglar has grown, and the drug is now included in formularies used by slightly more than half the patients who have health insurance, said Eli Lilly spokesman Greg Kueterman.

In another forthcoming study, this one examining 2018 Medicare coverage, researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that “almost every plan has at least one branded drug on the formulary that’s in a better place than the generic,” said Gerard Anderson, the professor leading the research.

(A grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, which helps support Kaiser Health News, financed the Hopkins research).

In 2015, only 19 percent of generic drugs covered by Medicare were in the preferred formulary tiers with the lowest out-of-pocket costs, found a study last year by consultants Avalere. In 2011, on the other hand, 71 percent of generics had been in the best tier, which helps determine what patients are prescribed.

The Association for Accessible Medicines, the generic drug lobby, paid for that study. Rebate-influenced barriers to generics are “increasingly problematic,” said AAM CEO Chip Davis.

Disputes over formulary choices have hit the courts. Pfizer sued Johnson & Johnson in 2017, alleging that rebates induced insurers to prefer Remicade, an anti-inflammatory biologic, at the expense of Pfizer’s lower-priced product.

Critics of rebate traps include top Trump administration officials, under pressure from a president who has promised to lower drug prices.

Because quick rebates from brands are often more attractive to PBMs and insurers than long-term savings from generics, “this is a real challenge in terms of biosimilars coming to market and gaining market share” Scott Gottlieb, head of the FDA, said in an interview.

Such objections add to a crescendo of grievances against hidden rebates. Consumers and advocates have complained for years that rebates cut costs for PBMs and insurers but do little for patients, who are often left paying their out-of-pocket share based on soaring list prices.

Crook’s out-of-pocket costs for Lantus rose steadily over the years to about $900 annually, she said. After switching to Basaglar last year, her cost was less than $100.

Mark Gooley, who has Type 1 diabetes and lives in Florida, said he started ordering Lantus by mail from Canada after the U.S. list price rose fourfold in a little more than a decade.

“I have a very low opinion of companies like Sanofi,” he said. “They could afford to sell it to me when it came out” at a much lower price, he said. “Inflation has not been 400 percent.”

Because of rebates paid to PBMs, Sanofi’s net price for Lantus has actually decreased over the past five years despite the list-price increases, said company spokesman Florio. “Unfortunately, these savings are not consistently passed through to patients,” he said.

PBMs say they respond to the terms drug companies offer and negotiate to save billions for government, insurers and employers. “Simply put, the easiest way to lower costs would be for drug companies to lower their prices,” the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM lobby, said in an emailed statement.

For its part, PhRMA, the branded-drug association, has said it wants to scrap the rebate system and have PBMs paid for services provided.

Congress has done little to fix the rebate problem despite widespread criticism, but senior legislators in both chambers have pledged to address high drug prices this year.

Last summer, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed changing “safe harbor” protections that shield pharma rebates from being viewed as illegal kickbacks. But the proposal, under review at the Office of Management and Budget since July, has never been publicly aired, leaving the industry to wonder how substantial it is and if it will ever take effect.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

15 easy low carb meals  made in a crock pot. Click on slide show

 

 

https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/Low-Carb-Slow-Cooker-Recipes-45634898

Honored Contributor
Posts: 17,739
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

an. 8, 2019 -- Drinking diet soda may raise the risk for a severe type of diabetic eye disease that can lead to blindness, a new study says.

The study, published in Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, is the first to evaluate the link between soft drinks and what’s called proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

"In our clinical sample of people with diabetes, consuming more than four cans, or 1.5 liters, of diet soft drinks per week was associated with a twofold increased risk of having proliferative diabetic retinopathy," first author Eva Fenwick, PhD, told Medscape Medical News. Fenwick is a clinical research fellow at the Singapore Eye Research Institute and an assistant professor at the Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

The study did not find the same results among those who drank regular, sugar-sweetened soft drinks.

More studies are needed to tell whether soft drinks are unhealthy alternatives to sugar-sweetened beverages, Fenwick says.



.

Diet soft drinks have been marketed as healthier than regular soft drinks, yet a growing body of evidence has suggested that artificial sweeteners may also harm your health. Past research has linked diet soda to a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, and stroke.

Some researchers believe that diet beverages may "fake out" the body to assume that it has taken in more energy than it really has. That may lead to more hunger and higher calorie intake in the long run.


The study included 609 adults -- 73 with type 1 diabetes , 510 with type 2 diabetes, and 26 with an unknown type of diabetes -- at an eye hospital between 2009 and 2010. The average age of the participants was 64.6 years. They came from the Diabetes Management Project, a study of English-speaking adults with diabetes in Melbourne, Australia.

Participants reported how many soft drinks they drank as part of a 145-question food questionnaire. Of the total sample, 46.8% drank regular soft drinks, and 31.2% drank diet soft drinks.


Almost a quarter had proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Those who drank more than four 12-ounce servings of diet soda a week were 2.5 times more likely to have the disease, researchers found. The researchers adjusted results for things that usually make diabetic retinopathy more likely, such as diabetes duration, smoking, and body mass index.

Those who regularly drank sugar-sweetened soft drinks were not as likely to have the disorder.

"Our finding that regular soft drink was not associated with increased risk of proliferative diabetic retinopathy could be due to the small numbers of high consumers. We had to merge the high-consumer category with the moderate-consumer category, and this may have masked the true relationship," Fenwick told Medscape Medical News.

"Although the results of our study must be interpreted within the context of several limitations, they add to the growing body of literature on the harmful effects of diet drinks on a range of health outcomes, including CVD [cardiovascular disease], diabetes, and metabolic syndrome," Fenwick said.

"Given that diet soft drinks are perceived as a healthy alternative to regular soft drinks, clinicians and patients should be aware that diet soft drinks may not be without risks of their own," she concluded.

Medscape Medical News