Loading summary

Transcript40 lines

[00:01]
A
Hello and welcome to another episode of Diabetes Dialogue, Technology, Therapeutics and Real World Perspectives. My name is Diana Isaacs, I'm with my co host Natalie Bellini and we are again live at you at ADA PSI sessions in New Orleans. And we are so excited about all of the learnings that have happened. We want to focus this episode on a couple really key things that have been just incredible and I think hugely practice changing. So one of them is the long awaited Connect trial. Right. So this was a trial, a randomized control trial of continuous glucose monitoring in non insulin treated people with type 2 diabetes. And I just want to emphasize how important this is because I recall, you know, the days when CGM was really for people with type 1 diabetes once upon a time. And, and then it was for people that needed insulin. And we had the diamond trials that were the first randomized control trials that really showed there was benefit and people other than just those with type 1 diabetes. Right. And then what I think was a particular hallmark landmark trial was mobile.
[01:12]
B
Mobile, right. Yeah.
[01:13]
A
Which was a randomized controlled trial looking at CGM in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin with other non insulin therapies. And, and in that trial they showed a 0.4% treatment difference and a 15% improvement in time and range. And that really is what led to CGM being covered. Now for people on baselin, just a basal insulin and Medicare covers it and we've seen a lot of other payers cover it and it was really that trial. So taking a step back, the reason this Connect trial is so important is because this is in non insulin treated people. And the question really is, is the benefit there, is it worth it? Should payers pay for CGM and non insulin treated individuals and should we be using it? Is it really making a difference? So we were waiting and waiting and these trial results were beyond anything I would have guessed.
[02:11]
B
Right.
[02:11]
A
I mean beyond. So the difference we just talked about how mobile. A 0.4% difference. This trial had a 0.9% difference difference between the groups. When you think about clinically significance, I mean that is almost a full 1%. That is very significant. I mean it's, it's kind of, it's very amazing. I'm going to read a little bit more. So Overall in the CGM group there was a 1.6%, a 1C reduction and this was from a baseline mean a 1C of 8.8%. And this was over 26 weeks compared to the control group. And we also saw that 82% of participants had a clinically and significant lower A1C of at least 0.5%. And then when it comes to time and range, it was five hours per day greater in the CGM group compared to the control group.
[03:08]
B
Five hours, so that's about 20%. If we think about 1% is 15 minutes. So wow, right?
[03:16]
A
I mean it's astounding. It's way more than I would have ever imagined. And I remember people were asking before the conference like do you think this data, what do you think it's gonna show? Do you think it's gonna make an impact? And I was like a little bit, I hope. I mean, sure, right. I was secretly, I was like really hoping but I was secretly scared that it wouldn't. And this is like beyond my wildest expectations. I am just so excited because when I think of the implications of this. So first just thinking ADA standards of care which needs randomized control trial evidence to really have that level A evidence. And right now when it comes it comes to non insulin treated individuals, it's really a lower level, right? It says anyone that could benefit, but it's a level C to me, I
[03:59]
B
mean this should make it an A,
[04:01]
A
like a level A. And then when I think about coverage, when you see data like this, like how could payers not pay? You're going to get almost a 1% more A1C lowering. Like wouldn't you want to have all people have this? So I just think like this is really big news and I'm just so
[04:21]
B
excited, I'm so excited and the potential is there for us. I mean so there's a couple of things. One is first what happens is the data is reported and as this we need randomized control trials because that way you can't manipulate the data, right? We don't know who's getting what. We don't know, right? So here we go, we do this randomized control trial, we get the data, we look at the evidence, then the ADA makes guidelines based on evidence. But if there's no randomized control trial, you never get an A, right? It comes with a randomized control trial, sometimes more than one. And then the guidelines change and then insurance we would hope will follow. You and I are so fortunate to. One reason in living in Ohio, because Ohio Medicaid actually covers cgm. And I always, when we talk about this for anybody who has diabetes of any type, you can have type 2 diet controlled, you can have type 2 only on metformin, you can have type 1, you can have type C3 after a post pancreatectomy all of those people get CGM covered under Medicaid at the regular pharmacy. So I don't even have to fill out a piece of paper. I send it in. It's beautiful. Why do they do that? I believe they do it because it reduces hospitalizations. And now we have data that says it actually increases time and range. And more importantly for insurance companies, I think, I wish they understood time and range, but reduction of A1C really is that important.
[05:51]
A
Right. So they're actually gonna be doing a 26 week extension trial which will be very interesting and then we look forward to the full publication. So this is presented. Here we Go sessions, the great readout. But definitely it'll be very exciting to have that full publication and maybe we'll
[06:07]
B
get some special guest on to talk about it.
[06:09]
A
Yeah, so stay tuned for that. Cause we might know the CPI involved
[06:13]
B
who might have volunteered to come visit us virtually on Zoom.
[06:19]
A
Yes. All right, so what else?
[06:21]
B
Right, so our other study. Wow, look at this. Another. So I, I think we always, we come to ADA thinking we're going to get some wows. We always think we're going to get the wows. We actually kind of expect them now. Right. It's been a handful of years that you and I have been attending together and we're like, what did you see? What did I see? You know. But another readout was this ratag. Here I go, right?
[06:44]
A
Retatrutide.
[06:45]
B
Yes. This retatrutide sure drew a standing room only, you guys. People were waiting at the door and if one person walked out, the next person was allowed in. It was amazing. So what happened? So on Saturday of ada, there was a big readout on the data. They looked at people with type 2 diabetes and 537 people in this group, 17% weight loss reduction at their highest dose of 12 milligrams. That's a lot. So it's a lot. Remember that we're seeing these high, high amounts of weight loss in people without diabetes, but diabetes, and we don't all understand all the mechanisms around it, these drugs don't cause as much weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes. So, so this, you know, you think, oh, 17%, didn't I see? 24% the other day. Didn't I see. Yes you did. But those are with people without diabetes. This is the highest level of weight loss we've seen so far in people with diabetes. 17%.
[07:50]
A
Right. And this is a triple agonist, so it's GLP, GIP and a glucagon agonist. So it definitely has that additional mechanism of action. And so it's. I mean this is a powerhouse. Right. We already have semaglutide, tirzepatide. And then to see this 17% weight loss is really, really remarkable.
[08:09]
B
It is. And coupled with that was up to a 1.9%, a 1C reduction to. I'm sorry, 1.9 points. Right. So that's amazing all by itself. So almost 2 points down. 2% of a drop in a 1C is unheard of.
[08:28]
A
With 1 point, combined it with CGM, maybe we would have gotten even more.
[08:31]
B
We could have even done better. Right, like, and that's really. Yeah, that is impressive. Right. This drug is a very powerful combination and I'm pretty excited about what we're gonna see. So that was one Dr. Chang talked about using this medication with obesity and non diabetes. And what did we see there? We saw 28% weight reduction. 28%. It's so much right. At 80 weeks. So, so and without a stopping point. So there was continued. You know, they stopped and measured at 80 weeks, which is what that means. It doesn't mean that the weight loss stopped. They just stopped the measurement. They are continuing to follow those people. Again, super interesting. Triple agonist, here we come.
[09:20]
A
Well, it's really interesting because that is a lot of weight loss. And so you start to wonder, are we going to start selecting drugs based on the percentage of weight loss that we need? And also what is the ultimate goal? I guess are we trying to aim to have a normal BMI or not? Or is the goal to get people to a BMI under 25? I mean, I don't know that we really have evidence to say that that is the magic goal for everyone. These drugs having so much weight loss
[09:49]
B
potential kind of makes people will get there at some. Right? Yeah. Right. And then what? Right. Yeah.
[09:56]
A
And it. I guess we will just need to figure out is there benefit, I guess like getting down let's say to a BMI of 27 versus 25. I mean we have really great data when it's something like cholesterol. Right. And LDL lowering and knowing where do we go and understanding how LDL less than 55 might be better for someone versus less than 70 if they have cardiovascular disease. But I just don't think with BMI with body weight, we don't know. No. Right. And of course BMI in itself is also not.
[10:27]
B
Not a great. Right. And maybe what we need to do is start looking at body compos and saying we want to make it maximize that loss of fat and minimize. Because we can't eliminate the loss of muscle and use measurements that calculate that so that we make sure that the person is still safe.
[10:49]
A
Right.
[10:49]
B
That we can't. At what point would we say due to muscle loss, we would need to stabilize that medication or back it down just a little bit, Even if they're not at the. The body weight that we want them just for safety reasons, you know, we want that muscle in the background and how important it is going to be to have someone really working with people taking these very strong weight loss medications to help build muscle. You know, I mean, I have a. I have bands in my office that I, you know, people will see me on calls and they'll see my arms moving, and it's like, it helps balance my stress, but it gives me some weight bearing. In between what, you know, I stand and walk at my office. What are other people doing? We need to make sure people are moving and flexing their muscles and really keeping that muscle mass up. There's a lot to be thought about in what's gonna happen in the next couple of years.
[11:43]
A
Right. What the goals should be. And then also with a drug like retatrutide, which has so much weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes, that is going to be good for a lot of people. But there are some patients where we actually really want that glucose lowering. Like, we could use that to almost 2% A1C lowering, but we don't necessarily want that level of weight loss. And that's where I think having different molecules will be beneficial. Absolutely. If you could pick one that had glucose lowering but didn't have as much weight loss, if you didn't want the weight loss, that would be really beneficial.
[12:17]
B
Absolutely. Some of our patients, as they age, you know, I don't want their BMI. It's like, isn't 27 or 28 where you really want them? As someone ends in their 70s or 80s because you don't want them to be frail, you don't want them to end up in the hospital with pneumonia, to lose 10 or 15 or 20 pounds and have not that body weight to lose? So that back and forth between the how much should we lose? Where should we leave someone? At what age? How frail are they? You know, do they have osteoporosis? Those kinds of questions are going. Or conditions are all going to affect how we decide to dose these medications.
[12:55]
A
Right. I mean, it's a lot to think about.
[12:57]
B
It's a lot.
[12:58]
A
So it's a very exciting time.
[12:59]
B
Again. Again, an A.D.A.
[13:00]
A
wow.
[13:00]
B
Right?
[13:01]
A
Right?
[13:01]
B
I mean, absolute wow.
[13:02]
A
Yes. This was definitely the year of the Incretin. And then also the amazing CGM data. And with that, we thank you so much for tuning in. That wraps up this episode of Diabetes Dialogue, Technology, Therapeutics and Real World perspectives. Right at you from ada.
[13:18]
B
Thanks, everyone.

Summary5 min read

Podcast Summary: Diabetes Dialogue – CONNECT, TRANSCEND, and TRIUMPH at ADA 2026

Date: June 11, 2026
Hosts: Dr. Diana Isaacs & Dr. Natalie Bellini
Episode Theme: Practice-Changing ADA 2026 Highlights – The CONNECT CGM Trial & Retatrutide for Weight Loss in Diabetes

Episode Overview

In this special ADA 2026 edition, Drs. Diana Isaacs and Natalie Bellini deliver an enthusiastic roundup of the most impactful clinical trial announcements from this year’s American Diabetes Association conference in New Orleans. Focusing on two “practice-changing” studies—the CONNECT randomized controlled trial (RCT) on CGM for non-insulin treated Type 2 diabetes, and new data on retatrutide (a triple agonist for weight loss and glucose control)—the hosts dissect results, clinical implications, and what’s next for diabetes care.

1. The CONNECT Trial: Expanding CGM to Non-Insulin Treated Type 2 Diabetes

Background & Historical Context

Timestamps: 00:15–03:59
CGMs (continuous glucose monitors) were once reserved strictly for Type 1 diabetes, then for insulin-dependent T2D.
Seminal trials like DIAMOND and MOBILE paved the way for coverage but left gaps for non-insulin users.

Key CONNECT Findings

CGM in non-insulin-treated T2D—first RCT of its kind.
A1c Reduction:
- “Overall in the CGM group there was a 1.6%, a 1C reduction…over 26 weeks compared to the control group.” (Diana Isaacs, 02:11)
- “This trial had a 0.9% difference between the groups. When you think about clinically significance, I mean that is almost a full 1%. That is very significant.” (Isaacs, 02:10)
Time in Range:
- “Five hours per day greater in the CGM group compared to the control group.” (Isaacs, 03:08)
- “Five hours, so that’s about 20%. …Wow, right?” (Natalie Bellini, 03:08)

Clinical and Policy Implications

“The reason this CONNECT trial is so important is because this is in non insulin treated people…the question really is, is the benefit there, is it worth it?” (Isaacs, 01:12)
“These trial results were beyond anything I would have guessed.” (Isaacs, 02:10)
Should now move ADA standards of care from “level C” to “level A” evidence for CGM in this population. (Isaacs, 03:59; Bellini, 03:59)
Potential to tip insurance coverage in states and nationally:
- “When you see data like this, like how could payers not pay? You’re going to get almost a 1% more A1C lowering.” (Isaacs, 04:00)
Real-world story: In Ohio, Medicaid already covers CGM for all diabetes types—pointing to reduced hospitalizations and tangible benefits. (Bellini, 04:20)

Memorable Quote

“I am just so excited because when I think of the implications…this is really big news and I’m just so excited.” (Isaacs, 04:00)

What's Next?

“They’re actually gonna be doing a 26 week extension trial which will be very interesting and then we look forward to the full publication.” (Isaacs, 05:51)

2. Retatrutide: Next-Level Incretin for Weight Loss & Glucose Control

Retatrutide ADA Data

Timestamps: 06:21–12:17
Standing-room crowd for results—“People were waiting at the door and if one person walked out, the next person was allowed in.” (Bellini, 06:45)

For Type 2 Diabetes:

Weight Loss: “17% weight loss reduction at their highest dose of 12 milligrams. That’s a lot.” (Bellini, 07:49)
- Highest yet in T2D for any agent; most prior numbers in T2D <15%
- “This is the highest level of weight loss we’ve seen so far in people with diabetes.” (Bellini, 07:49)
A1c Reduction:
- “Coupled with that was up to a 1.9%, a 1C reduction too. I’m sorry, 1.9 points. …almost 2 points down. 2% of a drop in A1C is unheard of.” (Bellini, 08:08)

For Obesity (Without Diabetes):

“We saw 28% weight reduction. …At 80 weeks.” (Bellini, 09:20)

Mechanism:

Triple agonist: GLP-1, GIP, Glucagon—giving it a broader metabolic reach.

Implications for Practice

Isaacs on clinical decision making:
- "Are we going to start selecting drugs based on the percentage of weight loss that we need?" (Isaacs, 09:20)
- “I don’t know that we really have evidence to say that that is the magic goal for everyone.” (Isaacs, 09:49)
Both hosts question the use of BMI as a guiding metric, emphasizing the need to account for muscle mass and patient age, frailty, and safety.
“We need to make sure people are moving and flexing their muscles…there’s a lot to be thought about in what’s gonna happen in the next couple of years.” (Bellini, 10:49)
The importance of individualized therapy: “Some patients…we really want that glucose lowering…but we don't necessarily want that level of weight loss.” (Isaacs, 11:42)

Notable Quotes

“Triple agonist, here we come.” (Bellini, 09:20)
“That is impressive. …This drug is a very powerful combination and I’m pretty excited about what we’re gonna see.” (Bellini, 08:31)
“At what point would we say due to muscle loss, we would need to stabilize that medication or back it down just a little bit, even if they’re not at the body weight that we want them just for safety reasons…” (Bellini, 10:49)

3. The Big Picture: Shifting the Paradigm—CGM and Incretins in 2026

Timestamps: 12:55–13:17
“It's a very exciting time." (Isaacs, 12:57)
"This was definitely the year of the Incretin. And then also the amazing CGM data." (Isaacs, 13:02)

Closing Sentiment

Both hosts express awe at the rapid pace of breakthroughs and the prospect of new, evidence-based standards that will directly improve lives.

Quick Reference – Key Timestamps

CONNECT Trial Background & Results: 00:15–05:51
Retatrutide Study Results: 06:21–12:17
Discussion on Individualizing Therapy & Future Practice: 09:20–12:17

Memorable Moments

“Five hours per day greater in the CGM group compared to the control group.” (Isaacs, 03:08)
"We always think we're going to get the wows [at ADA]. This year, we really got them." (Bellini, 06:21)
“This was definitely the year of the Incretin.” (Isaacs, 13:02)

Summary

This episode captures the sense of transformation and optimism among diabetes care providers in 2026, as data from the CONNECT trial and retatrutide studies dramatically expand the promise of CGM for all with T2D and usher in a new era of potent incretin-based therapies. The hosts contextualize these findings, discuss their practice-changing implications, and raise timely questions on personalizing therapy for safety and optimal benefit—“wow” moments included.

Loading summary

Transcript40 lines

[00:01]
A
Hello and welcome to another episode of Diabetes Dialogue, Technology, Therapeutics and Real World Perspectives. My name is Diana Isaacs, I'm with my co host Natalie Bellini and we are again live at you at ADA PSI sessions in New Orleans. And we are so excited about all of the learnings that have happened. We want to focus this episode on a couple really key things that have been just incredible and I think hugely practice changing. So one of them is the long awaited Connect trial. Right. So this was a trial, a randomized control trial of continuous glucose monitoring in non insulin treated people with type 2 diabetes. And I just want to emphasize how important this is because I recall, you know, the days when CGM was really for people with type 1 diabetes once upon a time. And, and then it was for people that needed insulin. And we had the diamond trials that were the first randomized control trials that really showed there was benefit and people other than just those with type 1 diabetes. Right. And then what I think was a particular hallmark landmark trial was mobile.
[01:12]
B
Mobile, right. Yeah.
[01:13]
A
Which was a randomized controlled trial looking at CGM in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin with other non insulin therapies. And, and in that trial they showed a 0.4% treatment difference and a 15% improvement in time and range. And that really is what led to CGM being covered. Now for people on baselin, just a basal insulin and Medicare covers it and we've seen a lot of other payers cover it and it was really that trial. So taking a step back, the reason this Connect trial is so important is because this is in non insulin treated people. And the question really is, is the benefit there, is it worth it? Should payers pay for CGM and non insulin treated individuals and should we be using it? Is it really making a difference? So we were waiting and waiting and these trial results were beyond anything I would have guessed.
[02:11]
B
Right.
[02:11]
A
I mean beyond. So the difference we just talked about how mobile. A 0.4% difference. This trial had a 0.9% difference difference between the groups. When you think about clinically significance, I mean that is almost a full 1%. That is very significant. I mean it's, it's kind of, it's very amazing. I'm going to read a little bit more. So Overall in the CGM group there was a 1.6%, a 1C reduction and this was from a baseline mean a 1C of 8.8%. And this was over 26 weeks compared to the control group. And we also saw that 82% of participants had a clinically and significant lower A1C of at least 0.5%. And then when it comes to time and range, it was five hours per day greater in the CGM group compared to the control group.
[03:08]
B
Five hours, so that's about 20%. If we think about 1% is 15 minutes. So wow, right?
[03:16]
A
I mean it's astounding. It's way more than I would have ever imagined. And I remember people were asking before the conference like do you think this data, what do you think it's gonna show? Do you think it's gonna make an impact? And I was like a little bit, I hope. I mean, sure, right. I was secretly, I was like really hoping but I was secretly scared that it wouldn't. And this is like beyond my wildest expectations. I am just so excited because when I think of the implications of this. So first just thinking ADA standards of care which needs randomized control trial evidence to really have that level A evidence. And right now when it comes it comes to non insulin treated individuals, it's really a lower level, right? It says anyone that could benefit, but it's a level C to me, I
[03:59]
B
mean this should make it an A,
[04:01]
A
like a level A. And then when I think about coverage, when you see data like this, like how could payers not pay? You're going to get almost a 1% more A1C lowering. Like wouldn't you want to have all people have this? So I just think like this is really big news and I'm just so
[04:21]
B
excited, I'm so excited and the potential is there for us. I mean so there's a couple of things. One is first what happens is the data is reported and as this we need randomized control trials because that way you can't manipulate the data, right? We don't know who's getting what. We don't know, right? So here we go, we do this randomized control trial, we get the data, we look at the evidence, then the ADA makes guidelines based on evidence. But if there's no randomized control trial, you never get an A, right? It comes with a randomized control trial, sometimes more than one. And then the guidelines change and then insurance we would hope will follow. You and I are so fortunate to. One reason in living in Ohio, because Ohio Medicaid actually covers cgm. And I always, when we talk about this for anybody who has diabetes of any type, you can have type 2 diet controlled, you can have type 2 only on metformin, you can have type 1, you can have type C3 after a post pancreatectomy all of those people get CGM covered under Medicaid at the regular pharmacy. So I don't even have to fill out a piece of paper. I send it in. It's beautiful. Why do they do that? I believe they do it because it reduces hospitalizations. And now we have data that says it actually increases time and range. And more importantly for insurance companies, I think, I wish they understood time and range, but reduction of A1C really is that important.
[05:51]
A
Right. So they're actually gonna be doing a 26 week extension trial which will be very interesting and then we look forward to the full publication. So this is presented. Here we Go sessions, the great readout. But definitely it'll be very exciting to have that full publication and maybe we'll
[06:07]
B
get some special guest on to talk about it.
[06:09]
A
Yeah, so stay tuned for that. Cause we might know the CPI involved
[06:13]
B
who might have volunteered to come visit us virtually on Zoom.
[06:19]
A
Yes. All right, so what else?
[06:21]
B
Right, so our other study. Wow, look at this. Another. So I, I think we always, we come to ADA thinking we're going to get some wows. We always think we're going to get the wows. We actually kind of expect them now. Right. It's been a handful of years that you and I have been attending together and we're like, what did you see? What did I see? You know. But another readout was this ratag. Here I go, right?
[06:44]
A
Retatrutide.
[06:45]
B
Yes. This retatrutide sure drew a standing room only, you guys. People were waiting at the door and if one person walked out, the next person was allowed in. It was amazing. So what happened? So on Saturday of ada, there was a big readout on the data. They looked at people with type 2 diabetes and 537 people in this group, 17% weight loss reduction at their highest dose of 12 milligrams. That's a lot. So it's a lot. Remember that we're seeing these high, high amounts of weight loss in people without diabetes, but diabetes, and we don't all understand all the mechanisms around it, these drugs don't cause as much weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes. So, so this, you know, you think, oh, 17%, didn't I see? 24% the other day. Didn't I see. Yes you did. But those are with people without diabetes. This is the highest level of weight loss we've seen so far in people with diabetes. 17%.
[07:50]
A
Right. And this is a triple agonist, so it's GLP, GIP and a glucagon agonist. So it definitely has that additional mechanism of action. And so it's. I mean this is a powerhouse. Right. We already have semaglutide, tirzepatide. And then to see this 17% weight loss is really, really remarkable.
[08:09]
B
It is. And coupled with that was up to a 1.9%, a 1C reduction to. I'm sorry, 1.9 points. Right. So that's amazing all by itself. So almost 2 points down. 2% of a drop in a 1C is unheard of.
[08:28]
A
With 1 point, combined it with CGM, maybe we would have gotten even more.
[08:31]
B
We could have even done better. Right, like, and that's really. Yeah, that is impressive. Right. This drug is a very powerful combination and I'm pretty excited about what we're gonna see. So that was one Dr. Chang talked about using this medication with obesity and non diabetes. And what did we see there? We saw 28% weight reduction. 28%. It's so much right. At 80 weeks. So, so and without a stopping point. So there was continued. You know, they stopped and measured at 80 weeks, which is what that means. It doesn't mean that the weight loss stopped. They just stopped the measurement. They are continuing to follow those people. Again, super interesting. Triple agonist, here we come.
[09:20]
A
Well, it's really interesting because that is a lot of weight loss. And so you start to wonder, are we going to start selecting drugs based on the percentage of weight loss that we need? And also what is the ultimate goal? I guess are we trying to aim to have a normal BMI or not? Or is the goal to get people to a BMI under 25? I mean, I don't know that we really have evidence to say that that is the magic goal for everyone. These drugs having so much weight loss
[09:49]
B
potential kind of makes people will get there at some. Right? Yeah. Right. And then what? Right. Yeah.
[09:56]
A
And it. I guess we will just need to figure out is there benefit, I guess like getting down let's say to a BMI of 27 versus 25. I mean we have really great data when it's something like cholesterol. Right. And LDL lowering and knowing where do we go and understanding how LDL less than 55 might be better for someone versus less than 70 if they have cardiovascular disease. But I just don't think with BMI with body weight, we don't know. No. Right. And of course BMI in itself is also not.
[10:27]
B
Not a great. Right. And maybe what we need to do is start looking at body compos and saying we want to make it maximize that loss of fat and minimize. Because we can't eliminate the loss of muscle and use measurements that calculate that so that we make sure that the person is still safe.
[10:49]
A
Right.
[10:49]
B
That we can't. At what point would we say due to muscle loss, we would need to stabilize that medication or back it down just a little bit, Even if they're not at the. The body weight that we want them just for safety reasons, you know, we want that muscle in the background and how important it is going to be to have someone really working with people taking these very strong weight loss medications to help build muscle. You know, I mean, I have a. I have bands in my office that I, you know, people will see me on calls and they'll see my arms moving, and it's like, it helps balance my stress, but it gives me some weight bearing. In between what, you know, I stand and walk at my office. What are other people doing? We need to make sure people are moving and flexing their muscles and really keeping that muscle mass up. There's a lot to be thought about in what's gonna happen in the next couple of years.
[11:43]
A
Right. What the goals should be. And then also with a drug like retatrutide, which has so much weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes, that is going to be good for a lot of people. But there are some patients where we actually really want that glucose lowering. Like, we could use that to almost 2% A1C lowering, but we don't necessarily want that level of weight loss. And that's where I think having different molecules will be beneficial. Absolutely. If you could pick one that had glucose lowering but didn't have as much weight loss, if you didn't want the weight loss, that would be really beneficial.
[12:17]
B
Absolutely. Some of our patients, as they age, you know, I don't want their BMI. It's like, isn't 27 or 28 where you really want them? As someone ends in their 70s or 80s because you don't want them to be frail, you don't want them to end up in the hospital with pneumonia, to lose 10 or 15 or 20 pounds and have not that body weight to lose? So that back and forth between the how much should we lose? Where should we leave someone? At what age? How frail are they? You know, do they have osteoporosis? Those kinds of questions are going. Or conditions are all going to affect how we decide to dose these medications.
[12:55]
A
Right. I mean, it's a lot to think about.
[12:57]
B
It's a lot.
[12:58]
A
So it's a very exciting time.
[12:59]
B
Again. Again, an A.D.A.
[13:00]
A
wow.
[13:00]
B
Right?
[13:01]
A
Right?
[13:01]
B
I mean, absolute wow.
[13:02]
A
Yes. This was definitely the year of the Incretin. And then also the amazing CGM data. And with that, we thank you so much for tuning in. That wraps up this episode of Diabetes Dialogue, Technology, Therapeutics and Real World perspectives. Right at you from ada.
[13:18]
B
Thanks, everyone.