Miriam E. Tucker

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A cohort study of primary care patients with obesity found significant associations between weight management treatments (WMTs) and ≥ 5% weight loss for individuals.

Yet, low WMT utilization hindered population-level benefit.

METHODOLOGY:

This retrospective, population-based cross-sectional cohort study included 149,959 primary care patients from a Michigan academic health system between October 2015 and March 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• From 2017 to 2019, the average unadjusted body mass index (BMI) increased from 29.34 kg/m2 to 29.61 kg/m2 and the prevalence of obesity from 39.2% to 40.7%.
• Among 31,284 patients with obesity in 2017, 25.9% (6665) achieved ≥ 5% weight loss at 2 years.
• Among 37,245 with obesity in either 2017 or 2019 and sufficient follow-up, 1-year WMT utilization increased from 5.3% in 2017 to 7.1% in 2019 (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%), including nutritional counseling (6.3%), weight loss medication prescriptions (2.6%), and bariatric surgery (1.0%).
• In two groups of n = 5090 with and without WMT exposure who were propensity score–matched on covariates including BMI, sex, and age, the probabilities of ≥ 5% weight loss at 1 year were 15.6% without WMTs, 23.1% for nutrition counseling, 54.6% for meal replacement, 27.8% for weight loss medication, and 93% for bariatric surgery, with all approaches significant compared to no WMTs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health systems and insurers should consider novel strategies to enhance preference-sensitive use of WMT to optimize achievement of 5% or greater weight loss among individuals and populations with obesity.”

“While we included glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes, including semaglutide 1.0 mg, in our analyses, the study period predated the [US Food and Drug Administration]-approval of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management. Future work should explore the potential for semaglutide 2.4 mg and other medications with substantial weight loss effectiveness to reduce weight at the population level.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by James Henderson, PhD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues and was published online in JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

Single health system. Electronic health record data may be subject to weight and WMT measurement error, lack of adherence data, and any information about outside WMT access. Retrospective, observational study, subject to bias. Study period occurred before FDA approval of semaglutide for weight management, and thus, the findings may understate current use and effectiveness of weight loss medications.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Michigan Center for Diabetes Translational Research, Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Elizabeth Weiser Caswell Diabetes Institute at the University of Michigan. Dr. Henderson had no further disclosures, but some of the coauthors had industry ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning to the label of the osteoporosis drug denosumab (Prolia) about increased risk for severe hypocalcemia in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). 

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at increased risk for fracture for whom other treatments aren’t effective or can’t be tolerated. It’s also indicated to increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture, treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women at high risk for fracture, increase bone mass in men at high risk for fracture receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer, and increase bone mass in women at high risk for fracture receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

This new warning updates a November 2022 alert based on preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for hypocalcemia in patients with CKD on dialysis. 

Upon further examination of the data from two trials including more than 500,000 denosumab-treated women with CKD, the FDA concluded that severe hypocalcemia appears to be more common in those with CKD who also have mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). And, for patients with advanced CKD taking denosumab, “severe hypocalcemia resulted in serious harm, including hospitalization, life-threatening events, and death.” 

Most of the severe hypocalcemia events occurred 2-10 weeks after denosumab injection, with the greatest risk during weeks 2-5.

The new warning advises healthcare professionals to assess patients’ kidney function before prescribing denosumab, and for those with advanced CKD, “consider the risk of severe hypocalcemia with Prolia in the context of other available treatments for osteoporosis.”

If the drug is still being considered for those patients for initial or continued use, calcium blood levels should be checked, and patients should be evaluated for CKD-MBD. Prior to prescribing denosumab in these patients, CKD-MBD should be properly managed, hypocalcemia corrected, and patients supplemented with calcium and activated vitamin D to decrease the risk for severe hypocalcemia and associated complications.

“Treatment with denosumab in patients with advanced CKD, including those on dialysis, and particularly patients with diagnosed CKD-MBD should involve a health care provider with expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-MBD,” the FDA advises. 

Once denosumab is administered, close monitoring of blood calcium levels and prompt hypocalcemia management is essential to prevent complications including seizures or arrythmias. Patients should be advised to promptly report symptoms that could be consistent with hypocalcemia, including confusion, seizures, irregular heartbeat, fainting, muscle spasms or weakness, face twitching, tingling, or numbness anywhere in the body. 

In 2022, an estimated 2.2 million Prolia prefilled syringes were sold by the manufacturer to US healthcare settings.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neuroinflammation expert Jarred Younger, PhD, disputes a recent study commentary calling for clinicians to stop prescribing low-dose naltrexone for people with fibromyalgia.

Naltrexone is a nonselective µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at doses of 50-100 mg/day to treat opioid and alcohol dependence. Lower doses, typically 1-5 mg, can produce an analgesic effect via antagonism of receptors on microglial cells that lead to neuroinflammation. The low-dose version, available at compounding pharmacies, is not FDA-approved, but for many years it has been used off-label to treat fibromyalgia and related conditions.

Results from earlier small clinical trials have conflicted, but two conducted by Dr. Younger using doses of 4.5 mg/day showed benefit in reducing pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms. However, a new study from Denmark on 6 mg low-dose naltrexone versus placebo among 99 women with fibromyalgia demonstrated no significant difference in the primary outcome of change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 weeks.

On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in memory, and there were no differences in adverse events or safety, the authors reported in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Nonetheless, an accompanying commentary called the study a “resoundingly negative trial” and advised that while off-label use of low-dose naltrexone could continue for patients already taking it, clinicians should not initiate it for patients who have not previously used it, pending additional data.

Dr. Younger, director of the Neuroinflammation, Pain and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, was speaking on December 13, 2023, at a National Institutes of Health meeting about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome about the potential use of low-dose naltrexone for that patient population. He had checked the literature in preparation for his talk and saw the new study, which had just been published December 5, 2023. 

During his talk, Dr. Younger said, “It looks like the study was very well done, and all the decisions made sense to me, so I don’t doubt the quality of their data or the statistics.”

But as for the commentary, he said, “I strongly disagree, and I believe the physicians at this conference strongly disagree with that as well. I know plenty of physicians who would say that is not good advice because this drug is so helpful for so many people.”

Indeed, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, who heard Dr. Younger’s talk but hadn’t seen the new study, told this news organization that he is a “fan” of low-dose naltrexone based on his own experience with one patient who had a “clearly beneficial response” and that of other clinicians he’s spoken with about it. “My colleagues say it doesn’t work for everyone because the disease is so heterogeneous ... but it definitely works for some patients.”

Dr. Younger noted that the proportion of people in the Danish study who reported a clinically significant, that is 30% reduction, in pain scores was 45% versus 28% with placebo, not far from the 50% he found in his studies. “If they’d had 40 to 60 more people, they would have had statistically significant difference,” Dr. Younger said.

Indeed, the authors themselves pointed this out in their discussion, noting, “Our study was not powered to detect a significant difference regarding responder indices ... Subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia might respond differently to low-dose naltrexone treatment, and we intend to conduct a responder analysis based on levels of inflammatory biomarkers and specific biomarkers of glial activation, hypothesising that an inflammatory subgroup might benefit from the treatment. Results will be published in subsequent papers.”

The commentary authors responded to that, saying that they “appreciate” the intention to conduct that subgroup analysis, but that it is “probable that the current sample size will preclude robust statistical comparisons but could be a step to generate hypotheses.”

Those authors noted that a systematic review has described both pro-inflammatory (tumor necrosis factor, interleukin [IL]-6, and IL-8) and anti-inflammatory (IL-10) cytokines as peripheral inflammatory biomarkers in patients with fibromyalgia. “The specific peripheral biomarkers of glial activation are yet to be identified. The neuroinflammation hypothesis of fibromyalgia could be supported if a reduction of central nervous system inflammation would predict improvement of fibromyalgia symptoms. Subsequent work in this area is eagerly awaited.”

In the meantime, Dr. Younger said, “I do not think this should stop us from looking at low-dose naltrexone [or that] we shouldn’t try it. I’ve talked to over a thousand people over the last 10 years. It would be a very bad thing to give up on low-dose naltrexone now.”

Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Komaroff has no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BETHESDA, MD — New research into the mechanisms underlying myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and long COVID is aimed at identifying potential approaches to treatment of the two overlapping illnesses.

According to a new data brief from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2021-2022, 1.3% of US adults had ME/CFS, a complex, multisystem illness characterized by activity-limiting fatigue, worsening of symptoms after exertion, unrefreshing sleep, and other symptoms.

A 2-day conference, Advancing ME/CFS Research: Identifying Targets for Potential Intervention and Learning from Long COVID, was held in December 12-13 on the main campus of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was livestreamed. The last such meeting, also featuring results from NIH-funded research, was held in April 2019.

“Things have changed since 2019 ... The idea of this meeting is to try and identify pathways that will be treatable and druggable and really make an impact for patients based on the things that we’ve learned over the last number of years and including, fortunately or unfortunately, the huge number of people who are suffering from long COVID, where the symptoms overlap so much with those who have been suffering for a long time with ME/CFS,” said Conference Chair Joe Breen, PhD, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

As in 2019, the meeting was preceded by a day of research presentations from young investigators, some of whom also presented their findings at the main meeting. New this year were four “lived experience” speakers who described their physical, emotional, and financial struggles with ME/CFS or long COVID. Two of them presented virtually because they were too ill to travel.

Social worker and patient advocate Terri Wilder of Minneapolis, Minnesota, reported some feedback she received on social media after she asked people with ME/CFS about their priorities for the research and clinical communities.

Among the top responses were the need to recognize and study the phenomenon of “post-exertional malaise” and to stop recommending exercise for people with these illnesses, to accelerate research to find effective treatments, and to put an end to stigma around the condition. “People don’t believe us when we tell them we’re sick, people make fun of us, misperceptions persist,” Wilder said.

One person commented, “[Clinicians] shouldn’t be afraid to try off-label meds with us if needed. There may be some secondary effects, but they are better options than us taking our own lives because we can’t stand the suffering.”

Research areas covered at the conference included immunology, virology, metabolism, gene regulation, and neurology of both ME/CFS and long COVID, as well as the latest findings regarding the overlap between the two conditions.
 

Oxidative Stress in Both ME/CFS and Long COVID: A Role for Metformin?

Mark M. Davis, PhD, professor and director of the Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, summarized published data suggesting that oxidative stress is a shared characteristic of both ME/CFS and long COVID. Most cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) are produced in the cell’s mitochondria, and T-cell activation is ROS-dependent.

Women in particular with ME/CFS show high ROS levels with consistent T-cell hyperproliferation, “which can be suppressed with specific drugs such as metformin. This raises the prospect of optimizing drug treatment and drug discovery with a simple in vitro assay of the effects on a patient’s lymphocytes,” Dr. Davis said. He also cited a study suggesting that metformin may help prevent long COVID.

Asked to comment on that, longtime ME/CFS researcher Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, cautioned that although metformin is used safely by millions of people with type 2 diabetes worldwide, it’s possible that some people with ME/CFS may be more likely to experience its known adverse effects such as lactic acidosis.

To repurpose metformin or any other already-marketed drugs for ME/CFS and/or long COVID, Dr. Komaroff said, “We should entertain treatment trials.” However, as he and many others lamented at the conference, funding for off-patent drugs often isn’t forthcoming.
 

Addressing the Microbiome, Innate Immunity

W. Ian Lipkin, MD, of Columbia University, New York, NY, was one of two speakers who discussed the role of disruptions in the microbiome and innate immunity in ME/CFS. He presented data suggesting that “dysregulation of the gut microbiome in ME/CFS may interfere with butyrate production, resulting in inflammation and porosity to bacteria and bacterial products that trigger innate immunity.”

Dr. Lipkin highlighted a “really intriguing” paper in which exogenous administration of interleukin 37 (IL-37), a naturally occurring inhibitor of inflammation, reversed the decrease in exercise performance observed during inflammation-induced fatigue and increased exercise performance, both in mice.

“Although we do not fully understand the pathophysiology of ME/CFS, it is not premature to consider randomized clinical trials of pro- and pre-biotics that address dysbiosis as well as drugs that modify innate immune responses such as poly (I:C) and IL-37,” Dr. Lipkin said.
 

Alleviating Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress: A Strategy to Increase Energy?

Paul M. Hwang, MD, PhD, from the Cardiovascular Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, described work that he and his colleagues recently published around a case of a 38-year-old woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, a genetic early-onset cancer, who also had extensive fatigue, exercise intolerance, and post-exertional malaise that began after she contracted mononucleosis as a teenager.

Testing revealed that her cells had increased expression of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome Protein Family Member 3 (WASF3), a “top candidate” gene found to be associated with ME/CFS in a bioinformatics study published more than a decade ago. Moreover, immunoblotting of deidentified skeletal muscle biopsy samples obtained from patients with postinfectious ME/CFS also revealed significantly increased WASF3 levels.

Hwang and colleagues showed in mice that ER stress–induced WASF3 protein localizes to mitochondria and disrupts respiratory supercomplex assembly, leading to decreased oxygen consumption and exercise endurance.

However, use of the investigational protein phosphatase 1 inhibitor salubrinal in the female patient’s cells inhibited the ER stress, which in turn decreased WASF3 expression and improved mitochondrial supercomplex formation and respiration, “suggesting a treatment strategy in ME/CFS,” Dr. Hwang said.
 

Neurovascular Dysregulation During Exercise: A Role for Pyridostigmine?

David M. Systrom, MD, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, gave an update of his work investigating neurovascular dysregulation during exercise in both ME/CFS and long COVID using invasive cardiopulmonary testing.

In a 2021 publication, Dr. Systrom and his colleagues identified the mechanism of “preload failure,” or lower filling pressures of blood in the heart chambers because of insufficient vein constriction and reduced return of blood to the right side of the heart in people with ME/CFS, compared with healthy controls.

Subsequently, in a randomized trial of 45 patients with ME/CFS, Systrom and his colleagues published in November 2022, use of the cholinesterase inhibitor pyridostigmine, currently approved for treating myasthenia gravis and related conditions, improved peak Vo2 by increasing cardiac output and filling pressures.

Now, Dr. Systrom’s team is conducting a randomized trial comparing 60 mg pyridostigmine with or without low-dose naltrexone (LDN) vs placebo in 160 patients with ME/CFS for 3 months. Metabolomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and other assessments will be conducted on urine and blood samples. Participants will also wear devices that measure steps, sleep, heart rate, and other metrics.

Komaroff cautioned that pyridostigmine, too, has potential adverse effects. “I’m not sure pyridostigmine is ready for prime time ... It’s a drug developed for a very different purpose ... Now will it hold up in a larger trial, and will there be any side effects that turn up in larger studies? It’s not unreasonable to study.”
 

Brain Inflammation: Measuring and Treating It

Hannah F. Bues, clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, presented data now in preprint (ie, not yet peer-reviewed) in which researchers used [11C]PBR28 PET neuroimaging, a marker of neuroinflammation, to compare 12 individuals with long COVID vs 43 healthy controls. They found significantly increased neuroinflammation in several different brain regions in the long COVID group compared with controls.

Samples of peripheral blood plasma also showed significant correlations between neuroinflammation and circulating analytes related to vascular dysfunction. This work is ongoing in both long COVID and pre-COVID ME/CFS populations, Bues said.

Jarred Younger, PhD, of the Neuroinflammation, Pain, and Fatigue Laboratory at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, also gave an update of his ongoing work demonstrating significant brain inflammation seen in neuroimaging of people with ME/CFS compared with healthy controls.

Dr. Younger has been investigating the use of LDN for pain in fibromyalgia. Anecdotally, there have been reports of fatigue reduction with LDN in ME/CFS.

Dr. Younger conducted a post hoc analysis of his previous trial of LDN for 12 weeks in 30 patients with fibromyalgia. Of those, 16 met older CFS criteria. There was a significant reduction in their fatigue severity, with P <.0001 from baseline and P < .009 compared with placebo. The P values were high because the data included daily symptom reports. The average fatigue reduction was 25%.

“It wasn’t a study designed for ME/CFS, but I think it’s compelling evidence and enough with the other types of data we have to say we need to do a proper clinical trial of low-dose naltrexone in ME/CFS now,” Dr. Younger said.
 

‘We Need to Do Something’ About the Underfunding

Another NIH-funded ME/CFS researcher, Maureen Hanson, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, noted that the NIH currently funds ME/CFS research at about $13 million compared with $1.15 billion for the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery Initiative granted to NIH by Congress for “post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC)” in 2021 “because of the urgency of studying this. Most of us here are well aware of the underfunding of ME/CFS relative to the burden of illness,” she said.

Current 2024 funding for AIDS research is $3294 million. “There are 1.2 million individuals living with HIV in the United States, and there are over 3 million who are barely living with ME/CFS in the United States. We need to do something about this ... It’s certainly possible that future funding for PASC is now going to disappear,” Dr. Hanson cautioned.

Wilder, the patient advocate, reminded the audience that “There is a cohort of people with ME who got sick in the 1980s and 1990s in the prime of their life ... They have dreamed of a day when there would be a major announcement that a treatment has been discovered to take away the suffering of this disease ... They keep waiting and waiting, year after year, missing more and more of their lives with each passing day ... We’re all depending on you.”

Dr. Systrom has received funding from the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, Department of Defense, and Open Medicine Foundation. Dr. Younger’s work is funded by the NIH, Department of Defense, SolveME, the American Fibromyalgia Association, and ME Research UK. Dr. Lipkin and Dr. Hanson receive NIH funding. Dr. Komaroff has no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A high-quality, low-carbohydrate diet (LCD), rich in plant-based proteins and healthy fats, was associated with slower weight gain, while a lower-quality LCD was associated with the reverse.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective cohort study included 123,332 participants from the Nurses’ Health Studies (NHS, 1986-2010 and 1991-2015) and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, 1986-2018).
• Diets assessed by questionnaires were categorized as: (1) total LCD (TLCD), emphasizing overall lower carbohydrate intake; (2) animal-based LCD (ALCD), emphasizing animal-sourced protein and fat; (3) vegetable-based LCD (VLCD), emphasizing plant-sourced protein and fat; (4) a healthy LCD (HLCD), emphasizing less refined carbohydrates, more plant protein, and healthy fat; and (5) unhealthy LCD (ULCD), emphasizing less healthful carbohydrates, more animal protein, and unhealthy fat.
• The primary outcome was 4-year reported changes in body weight, divided into quintiles, with Q3 = no change, Q1 = largest decrease, and Q5 = largest increase.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants gained a mean of 1.3 kg over each 4-year interval, with gains of 0.8, 1.8, and 0.5 kg for NHS, NHSII, and HPFS, respectively.
• After adjustment for baseline and concomitant changes in lifestyle and demographic factors, compared with participants with no change in the TLCD score over 4-year intervals, those with the largest increase (Q5) in the TLCD score did not have significant weight change (0.03 kg), while those with the largest decrease (Q1) in the TLCD score had significantly less weight gain (−0.20 kg).
• Similarly, those following a VLCD with Q5 change, compared with those with stable Q3 adherence, experienced 0.21 kg less weight gain, and those with Q1 change experienced 0.17 kg less weight gain, both significant.
• Adhering to an ALCD was associated with more weight gain over time, with each 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in ALCD associated with a significant 0.13 kg more weight gain over 4-year intervals.
• Opposite results were seen for ULCD and HLCD scores, where a 1-SD increase in HLCD and ULCD was associated with a significant 0.36 kg weight loss and 0.39 kg weight gain, respectively, over 4-year intervals.
• The associations were stronger among individuals with baseline body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m².

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings of this cohort study underscore the importance of diet quality within LCD patterns for weight management… Overall, the study findings argue against the sole focus of macronutrient quantity for weight management and suggest the crucial role of nutrient quality in maintaining a healthy body weight.”

SOURCE:

This study was conducted by Binkai Liu, MS, of the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues. 

The findings were published online in  JAMA Network Open .

LIMITATIONS:

• Self-reported data.
• Observational study, potential for residual confounding.
• No body composition measurement.
• Study population was mainly White health professionals.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health, and one coauthor is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.