Clinical Endocrinology News

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

Salaries for millennial physicians are slightly increasing, but clinicians still face pay disparities across location, practice type, and gender.

Medscape Medical News reviewed survey data from more than 1200 practicing doctors under age 40 across 29 specialties over a 4-month period starting in October 2023.

The average annual total compensation (including any bonuses) for young clinicians rose from $326,000 to $338,000, about 4%, between 2022 and 2023. Among millennials, primary care physicians saw a 5% increase. But a large pay gap exists between fields: Specialists under age 40 earned an average of $357,000 in 2023, compared with the average primary care clinician salary of $271,000.

“Procedures are reimbursed too high, while very little value is placed on primary care,” one survey respondent complained.

The type of practice plays a major part in compensation. Millennial doctors in office-based, single-specialty group practices earned an average of $358,000 per year, followed by those in office-based multispecialty group practices at 355,000 per year. Those in outpatient clinics earned $278,000 per year.

“I believe the practice situation is a huge portion of compensation,” said Tiffany Di Pietro, DO, a cardiologist and internal medicine physician in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Owning your own private practice is generally more lucrative (if you have good business sense), but it is also quite a bit more time-consuming, whereas employed physicians usually make less but have fewer concerns with staffing and overhead.”

Like in previous years, a gender pay gap equated to men outearning women. Female physicians under age 40 of any kind earned about $302,000 per year, 24% less than their male counterparts, on average.

Millennial doctors in the Midwest brought home the biggest earnings, with an average salary of $343,000 vs $332,000 on the West Coast.

Millennial physicians also reported higher levels of dissatisfaction. In the 2022 report, 46% said they were not paid fairly. That figure rose to 49%. Just 68% of millennial doctors would choose medicine again if they could do things over, down from 76% in the 2021 report.

“Doctors go through multiple years of school and then have to act like we are working at Dunkin’ Donuts — like we’re on an assembly line,” one survey respondent said. “We should not have to be paid per patient seen but valued for 8-9 years of training.”

Despite these complaints, close to 7 out of 10 millennial respondents said pay was not a major factor in what area of medicine they chose, with 29% saying it played no role at all in their decision.

Psychiatrists and anesthesiologists were the happiest with their earnings, with 61% of both specialties reporting that they felt fairly paid. They were followed by dermatologists and emergency medicine doctors, both of whom 60% reported fair earnings.

Many millennial doctors are finding ways to make money outside of their practice, with 18% securing other medical-related work, 15% doing medical moonlighting, and 5% taking on non–medical-related work.

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

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) have a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis and a 2- to 3-fold increased risk for these diseases after diagnosis.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-based registry study including 3972 women diagnosed with spontaneous POI between 1988 and 2017.
• A total of 15,708 female population controls matched by age and municipality of residence were included for comparison.
• Autoimmune disease diagnoses were evaluated from childhood until the end of 2017 using the Hospital Discharge Registry.
• Women with a history of cancer or bilateral oophorectomy were excluded from the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with POI had a 2.6 times higher prevalence of severe autoimmune diseases before diagnosis compared to controls (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1).
• The prevalence of specific autoimmune diseases such as polyglandular autoimmune diseases (OR, 25.8; 95% CI, 9.0-74.1) and Addison disease (OR, 22.9; 95% CI, 7.9-66.1) was significantly higher in women with POI.
• The standardized incidence ratios for being diagnosed with a severe autoimmune disease after POI diagnosis was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.4) during the first 3 years, decreasing to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) after 12 years.
• No significant difference was found in the prevalence of diabetes type 1 and ankylosing spondylitis between women with POI and the reference cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“The study results strengthen the hypothesis that autoimmune mechanisms play an important role in the pathogenesis of POI. Future studies should focus on the immunological mechanism of POI from preventative and curative perspectives,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna M. Savukoski, Oulu University Hospital in Finland. It was published online in Human Reproduction.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included only autoimmune disorders diagnosed in specialized health care, which may underestimate the overall prevalence of autoimmune disorders in women with POI. Additionally, the study did not account for confounders such as body mass index and smoking, which are associated with the risk for autoimmune disease and POI.

DISCLOSURES:

Ms. Savukoski received grants from the Finnish Menopause Society, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Juho Vainio Foundation. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

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

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

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

MADRID — Individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity plus one or more metabolic risk factors are at a higher risk for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) with fibrosis and progression to more severe liver disease, stated new European guidelines that provide recommendations for diagnosis and management.

“The availability of improved treatment options underlines the need to identify at-risk individuals with MASLD early, as we now possess the tools to positively influence the course of the diseases, which is expected to prevent relevant clinical events,” stated the clinical practice guidelines, updated for the first time since 2016.

“Now we have guidelines that tell clinicians how to monitor the liver,” said Amalia Gastaldelli, PhD, research director at the Institute of Clinical Physiology of the National Research Council in Pisa, Italy, and a member of the panel that developed the guidelines.

Dr. Gastaldelli moderated a session focused on the guidelines at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). In an interview after the session, Dr. Gastaldelli, who leads a cardiometabolic risk research group, stressed the importance of the liver’s role in the body and the need for diabetes specialists to start paying more attention to this vital organ.

“It’s an important organ for monitoring because liver disease is silent, and the patient doesn’t feel unwell until disease is severe,” she said. “Diabetologists already monitor the eye, the heart, the kidney, and so on, but the liver is often neglected,” she said. A 2024 study found that the global pooled prevalence of MASLD among patients with type 2 diabetes was 65.33%.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted the importance of liver status in diabetes care. The liver makes triglycerides and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which are all major risk factors for atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), she said, as well as producing glucose, which in excess can lead to hyperglycemia.

The guidelines were jointly written by EASD, the European Association for the Study of the Liver, and the European Association for the Study of Obesity, and published in Diabetologia, The Journal of Hepatology, and Obesity Facts.
 

A Metabolic Condition

In the EASD meeting session, Dr. Gastaldelli discussed the reasons for, and implications of, shifting the name from nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to MASLD.

“The name change focuses on the fact that this is a metabolic disease, while NAFLD had no mention of this and was considered stigmatizing by patients, especially in relation to the words ‘fatty’ and ‘nonalcoholic,’” she said.

According to the guidelines, MASLD is defined as liver steatosis in the presence of one or more cardiometabolic risk factor(s) and the absence of excess alcohol intake.

MASLD has become the most common chronic liver disease and includes isolated steatosis, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH, previously NASH), MASH-related fibrosis, and cirrhosis.

In the overarching group of steatotic liver disease, a totally new intermediate category has been added: MASLD with moderate (increased) alcohol intake (MetALD), which represents MASLD in people who consume greater amounts of alcohol per week (140-350 g/week and 210-420 g/week for women and men, respectively).

The change in the nomenclature has been incremental and regional, Dr. Gastaldelli said. “The definition first changed from NAFLD to MAFLD, which recognizes the importance of metabolism in the pathophysiology of this disease but does not take into account alcohol intake. MAFLD is still used in Asia, Australasia, and North Africa, while Europe and the Americas have endorsed MASLD.”
 

Case-Finding and Diagnosis

Identifying MASLD cases in people at risk remains incidental, largely because it is a silent disease and is symptom-free until it becomes severe, said Dr. Gastaldelli.

The guideline recognizes that individuals with type 2 diabetes or obesity with additional metabolic risk factor(s) are at a higher risk for MASLD with fibrosis and progression to MASH.

Assessment strategies for severe liver fibrosis in MASLD include the use of noninvasive tests in people who have cardiometabolic risk factors, abnormal liver enzymes, and/or radiological signs of hepatic steatosis, particularly in the presence of type 2 diabetes or obesity or in the presence of one or more metabolic risk factors.

Dr. Gastaldelli noted that type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity, including abdominal obesity identified by large waist circumference, are the major risk factors and should be warning signs.

“We need to consider abdominal obesity too — we’ve published data in relatively lean people, body mass index < 25, with MASH but without diabetes. Most of the patients accumulated fat viscerally and in the liver and had hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia,” she said.

“The guidelines reflect this because the definition of MASLD includes steatosis plus at least one metabolic factor — waist circumference, for example, which is related to visceral fat, hyperlipidemia, or hyperglycemia. Of note, in both pharmacological and diet-induced weight loss, the decrease in liver fat was associated with the decrease in visceral fat.” 

The noninvasive biomarker test, Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) may be used to assess the risk for liver fibrosis. The FIB-4 index is calculated using a patient’s age and results of three blood tests — aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and platelet count.

Advanced fibrosis (grade F3-F4) “is a major risk factor for severe outcomes,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. A FIB-4 test result below 1.3 indicates low risk for advanced liver fibrosis, 1.30-2.67 indicates intermediate risk, and above 2.67 indicates high risk.

“When fibrosis increases, then liver enzymes increase and the platelets decrease,” said Dr. Gastaldelli. “It is not a perfect tool, and we need to add in age because at a young age, it is prone to false negatives and when very old — false positives. It’s important to take a global view, especially if the patient has persistent high liver enzymes, but FIB-4 is low.” 

“And if they have more than one metabolic risk factor, proceed with more tests, for example, transient elastography,” she advised. Imaging techniques such as transient elastography may rule out or rule in advanced fibrosis, which is predictive of liver-related outcomes.

“However, imaging techniques only diagnose steatosis and fibrosis, and right now, MASH can only be diagnosed with liver biopsy because we do not have any markers of liver inflammation and ballooning. In the future, noninvasive tests based on imaging and blood tests will be used to identify patients with MASH,” she added.
 

Management of MASLD — Lifestyle and Treatment

“Pharmacological treatments are designed for [patients] with MASH and fibrosis grade F2 or F3, but not MASLD,” Dr. Gastaldelli said. As such, lifestyle interventions are the mainstay of management — including weight loss, dietary changes, physical exercise, and low to no alcohol consumption. “Eating good-quality food and reducing calories are both important because the metabolism responds differently to different nutrients,” Dr. Gastaldelli said.

“In particular, the guidelines advise dietary management because some foods carry liver toxicity, for example, sugary foods with sucrose/fructose especially,” she said, adding that, “complex carbohydrates are less harmful than refined carbohydrates. Processed foods should be avoided if possible because they contain sugars, [as well as] saturated fats and hydrogenated fat, which is particularly bad for the liver. Olive oil is better than butter or margarine, which are rich in saturated fat, and fish and white meat are preferable.”

She added that a diet to help manage type 2 diabetes was not so dissimilar because sugar again needs to be reduced. 

If a patient has severe obesity (and MASLD), data show that bariatric surgery is beneficial. “It not only helps weight loss, but it improves liver histology and has been shown to improve or resolve type 2 diabetes and reduce CVD risk. Importantly, regarding fibrosis, nutritional management after the bariatric surgery is the most important thing,” said Dr. Gastaldelli.

Optimal management of comorbidities — including the use of incretin-based therapies such as semaglutide or tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes or obesity, if indicated — is advised, according to the guidelines.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been shown to have a beneficial effect on MASH, said Dr. Gastaldelli. “They have not shown effectiveness in the resolution of fibrosis, but this might take longer to manifest. However, if the medication is started early enough, it may prevent severe fibrosis. Significant weight loss, both with lifestyle and pharmacological treatment, should lead to an improvement in the liver too.”

There are currently no drugs available in Europe for the treatment of noncirrhotic MASH and severe fibrosis (stage ≥ 2). Resmetirom is the first approved MASH-targeted treatment in noncirrhotic MASH and significant liver fibrosis, with histological effectiveness on steatohepatitis and fibrosis, together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, but, for the moment, this agent is only available in United States.

Finally, turning to MASH-related cirrhosis, the guidelines advise adaptations of metabolic drugs, nutritional counseling, and surveillance for portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as liver transplantation in decompensated cirrhosis.

After the session, this news organization spoke to Tushy Kailayanathan, MBBS BSc, medical director of the liver MRI company, Perspectum, who reviewed the limitations of the FIB-4 test. The FIB-4 test identifies those with advanced fibrosis in the liver, for example, patients with hepatitis C, she noted; however, “it performs worse in type 2 diabetic patients and in the elderly. There is little clinical guidance on the adjustment of FIB-4 thresholds needed for these high cardiometabolic risk groups. The priority patients are missed by FIB-4 because those individuals with early and active disease may not yet have progressed to advanced disease detected by FIB-4.”

These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies, said Dr. Kailayanathan. Because of the nature of early and active liver disease in patients with high cardiometabolic risk, it would make sense to shift some diagnostic protocols into primary care.

“These individuals are exactly those amenable to primary care prevention strategies at annual diabetic review because they are likely to have modifiable cardiometabolic risk factors such as metabolic syndrome and would benefit from lifestyle and therapeutic intervention, including GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2is [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors],” she said. “Case-finding and detection of early-stage MASLD is a priority in diabetics, and there is an unmet need for accurate biomarkers to measure liver fat and inflammation early.”

Dr. Gastaldelli has been on the advisory board or consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Fractyl, Pfizer, Merck-MSD, MetaDeq and a speaker for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Kailayanathan is medical director at Perspectum, a UK-based company involved in liver imaging technology.

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

TOPLINE:

Women with hyperandrogenic polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have lower pregnancy (29.9%) and live birth rates (20.1%) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS (40.2% and 33.1%, respectively).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1376 participants from the PPCOS I and II trials, all meeting National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria for PCOS.
• Participants were categorized into hyperandrogenic (A and B) and nonhyperandrogenic (D) PCOS phenotypes on the basis of medical interviews, demographics, physical examinations, and laboratory data.
• Outcomes of interest included clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, live birth, obstetric complications, and neonatal outcomes.
• Fasting blood samples were analyzed for hormonal assays, and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance scores were calculated using fasting glucose and insulin values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had higher body mass index (35.5 ± 8.9 vs 31.9 ± 9.3; P < .001) and fasting insulin levels (21.6 ± 27.7 vs 14.7 ± 15.0 μIU/mL; P < .001) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had lower odds of achieving pregnancy (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92) and live birth (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• No significant differences were found in pregnancy loss rates (23.9% vs 32.3%, P = .06) or neonatal outcomes between the two groups.
• The study lacked the power to detect differences in neonatal outcomes because of the low prevalence of these outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS may represent a different disease process with unique morbidities and outcomes and could be counseled differently than hyperandrogenic PCOS,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jessica L. Chan, MD, MSCE, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary limitation of this study was that it is a secondary analysis of previously collected randomized controlled trial data, which may affect the availability of certain information. Additionally, the lower number of participants in the nonhyperandrogenic PCOS group could affect the power of the results. The study was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes because of their low prevalence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the ASRM/NICHD/Duke Clinical Research/Reproductive Scientist Training Program. One coauthor disclosed receiving payments from Celmatix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Exeltis, Organon, and Monsanto; another disclosed receiving payments from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with hyperandrogenic polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have lower pregnancy (29.9%) and live birth rates (20.1%) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS (40.2% and 33.1%, respectively).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1376 participants from the PPCOS I and II trials, all meeting National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria for PCOS.
• Participants were categorized into hyperandrogenic (A and B) and nonhyperandrogenic (D) PCOS phenotypes on the basis of medical interviews, demographics, physical examinations, and laboratory data.
• Outcomes of interest included clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, live birth, obstetric complications, and neonatal outcomes.
• Fasting blood samples were analyzed for hormonal assays, and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance scores were calculated using fasting glucose and insulin values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had higher body mass index (35.5 ± 8.9 vs 31.9 ± 9.3; P < .001) and fasting insulin levels (21.6 ± 27.7 vs 14.7 ± 15.0 μIU/mL; P < .001) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had lower odds of achieving pregnancy (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92) and live birth (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• No significant differences were found in pregnancy loss rates (23.9% vs 32.3%, P = .06) or neonatal outcomes between the two groups.
• The study lacked the power to detect differences in neonatal outcomes because of the low prevalence of these outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS may represent a different disease process with unique morbidities and outcomes and could be counseled differently than hyperandrogenic PCOS,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jessica L. Chan, MD, MSCE, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary limitation of this study was that it is a secondary analysis of previously collected randomized controlled trial data, which may affect the availability of certain information. Additionally, the lower number of participants in the nonhyperandrogenic PCOS group could affect the power of the results. The study was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes because of their low prevalence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the ASRM/NICHD/Duke Clinical Research/Reproductive Scientist Training Program. One coauthor disclosed receiving payments from Celmatix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Exeltis, Organon, and Monsanto; another disclosed receiving payments from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with hyperandrogenic polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have lower pregnancy (29.9%) and live birth rates (20.1%) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS (40.2% and 33.1%, respectively).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1376 participants from the PPCOS I and II trials, all meeting National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria for PCOS.
• Participants were categorized into hyperandrogenic (A and B) and nonhyperandrogenic (D) PCOS phenotypes on the basis of medical interviews, demographics, physical examinations, and laboratory data.
• Outcomes of interest included clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, live birth, obstetric complications, and neonatal outcomes.
• Fasting blood samples were analyzed for hormonal assays, and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance scores were calculated using fasting glucose and insulin values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had higher body mass index (35.5 ± 8.9 vs 31.9 ± 9.3; P < .001) and fasting insulin levels (21.6 ± 27.7 vs 14.7 ± 15.0 μIU/mL; P < .001) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• Participants with hyperandrogenic PCOS had lower odds of achieving pregnancy (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92) and live birth (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76) than those with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS.
• No significant differences were found in pregnancy loss rates (23.9% vs 32.3%, P = .06) or neonatal outcomes between the two groups.
• The study lacked the power to detect differences in neonatal outcomes because of the low prevalence of these outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS may represent a different disease process with unique morbidities and outcomes and could be counseled differently than hyperandrogenic PCOS,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jessica L. Chan, MD, MSCE, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary limitation of this study was that it is a secondary analysis of previously collected randomized controlled trial data, which may affect the availability of certain information. Additionally, the lower number of participants in the nonhyperandrogenic PCOS group could affect the power of the results. The study was underpowered to detect statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes because of their low prevalence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the ASRM/NICHD/Duke Clinical Research/Reproductive Scientist Training Program. One coauthor disclosed receiving payments from Celmatix, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Exeltis, Organon, and Monsanto; another disclosed receiving payments from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

There’s a new morning ritual in Pinedale, Wyoming, a town of about 2000, nestled against the Wind River Mountains.

Friends and neighbors in the oil- and gas-rich community “take their morning coffee and pull up” to watch workers building the county’s first hospital, said Kari DeWitt, the project’s public relations director.

“I think it’s just gratitude,” Ms. DeWitt said.

Sublette County is the only one in Wyoming — where counties span thousands of square miles — without a hospital. The 10-bed, 40,000-square-foot hospital, with a similarly sized attached long-term care facility, is slated to open by the summer of 2025.

Ms. DeWitt, who also is executive director of the Sublette County Health Foundation, has an office at the town’s health clinic with a window view of the construction.

Pinedale’s residents have good reason to be excited. New full-service hospitals with inpatient beds are rare in rural America, where declining population has spurred decades of downsizing and closures. Yet, a few communities in Wyoming and others in Kansas and Georgia are defying the trend.

“To be honest with you, it even seems strange to me,” said Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley. Small rural “hospitals are really struggling all across the country,” he said.

There is no official tally of new hospitals being built in rural America, but industry experts such as Mr. Boley said they’re rare. Typically, health-related construction projects in rural areas are for smaller urgent care centers or stand-alone emergency facilities or are replacements for old hospitals.

About half of rural hospitals lost money in the prior year, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm. And nearly 150 rural hospitals have closed or converted to smaller operations since 2010, according to data collected by the University of North Carolina’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

To stem the tide of closures, Congress created a new rural emergency hospital designation that allowed struggling hospitals to close their inpatient units and provide only outpatient and emergency services. Since January 2023, when the program took effect, 32 of the more than 1700 eligible rural hospitals — from Georgia to New Mexico — have joined the program, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Tony Breitlow is healthcare studio director for EUA, which has extensive experience working for rural health care systems. Mr. Breitlow said his national architecture and engineering firm’s work expands, replaces, or revamps older buildings, many of which were constructed during the middle of the last century.

The work, Mr. Breitlow said, is part of health care “systems figuring out how to remain robust and viable.”

Freeman Health System, based in Joplin, Missouri, announced plans last year to build a new 50-bed hospital across the state line in Kansas. Paula Baker, Freeman’s president and chief executive, said the system is building for patients in the southeastern corner of the state who travel 45 minutes or more to its bigger Joplin facilities for care.

Freeman’s new hospital, with construction on the building expected to begin in the spring, will be less than 10 miles away from an older, 64-bed hospital that has existed for decades. Kansas is one of more than a dozen states with no “certificate of need” law that would require health providers to obtain approval from the state before offering new services or building or expanding facilities.

Ms. Baker also said Freeman plans to operate emergency services and a small 10-bed outpost in Fort Scott, Kansas, opening early next year in a corner of a hospital that closed in late 2018. Residents there “cried, they cheered, they hugged me,” Ms. Baker said, adding that the “level of appreciation and gratitude that they felt and they displayed was overwhelming to me.”

Michael Topchik, executive director of the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said regional healthcare systems in the Upper Midwest have been particularly active in competing for patients by, among other things, building new hospitals.

And while private corporate money can drive construction, many rural hospital projects tap government programs, especially those supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Mr. Topchik said. That, he said, “surprises a lot of people.”

Since 2021, the USDA’s rural Community Facilities Programs have awarded $2.24 billion in loans and grants to 68 rural hospitals for work that was not related to an emergency or disaster, according to data analyzed by KFF Health News and confirmed by the agency. The federal program is funded through what is often known as the farm bill, which faces a September congressional renewal deadline.

Nearly all the projects are replacements or expansions and updates of older facilities.

The USDA confirmed that three new or planned Wyoming hospitals received federal funding. Hospital projects in Riverton and Saratoga received loans of $37.2 million and $18.3 million, respectively. Pinedale’s hospital received a $29.2 million loan from the agency.

Wyoming’s new construction is rare in a state where more than 80% of rural hospitals reported losses in the third quarter of 2023, according to Chartis. The state association’s Mr. Boley said he worries about several hospitals that have less than 10 days’ cash on hand “day and night.”

Pinedale’s project loan was approved after the community submitted a feasibility study to the USDA that included local clinics and a long-term care facility. “It’s pretty remote and right up in the mountains,” Mr. Boley said.

Pinedale’s Ms. DeWitt said the community was missing key services, such as blood transfusions, which are often necessary when there is a trauma like a car crash or if a pregnant woman faces severe complications. Local ambulances drove 94,000 miles last year, she said.

Ms. DeWitt began working to raise support for the new hospital after her own pregnancy-related trauma in 2014. She was bleeding heavily and arrived at the local health clinic believing it operated like a hospital.

“It was shocking to hear, ‘No, we’re not a hospital. We can’t do blood transfusions. We’re just going to have to pray you live for the next 45 minutes,’ ” Ms. DeWitt said.

Ms. DeWitt had to be airlifted to Idaho, where she delivered a few minutes after landing. When the hospital financing went on the ballot in 2020, Ms. DeWitt — fully recovered, with healthy grade-schoolers at home — began making five calls a night to rally support for a county tax increase to help fund the hospital.

“By improving health care, I think we improve everybody’s chances of survival. You know, it’s pretty basic,” Ms. DeWitt said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, professor of medicine, pediatrics, and surgery, and medical director of obesity medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was nearly 10 years into practicing pediatric medicine when she graduated from the obesity medicine fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston in 2013. “We were the very first sort of fellows to speak of then; there were no standards or curriculum,” she said.

Obesity was already epidemic, but stigma and bias were still pervasive in the medical community and within the public. After graduating, Dr. Srivastava spent months vying for a position with hospital CEOs. She traveled across the country explaining the specialty and its value, going into detail about the budget, business model, space requirement, and revenue potential of obesity medicine. 

Today marks a very different era.

Obesity medicine is exploding. Patients are spilling into doctors’ offices looking for obesity treatment. Healthcare systems are seeking out obesity specialists and building metabolic health centers. Since 2020, the number of doctors board-certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine has nearly doubled, and the number of obesity medicine fellowships across the country has more than doubled. Next month, another 2115 doctors from primary care, surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, fertility, endocrinology, and beyond will sit for the 2024 exam. The once niche specialty is quickly becoming intertwined with most of modern medicine.
 

The Need to Treat

It’s no mystery that the rapid expansion of obesity medicine coincides with the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of GLP-1 injections. The drugs’ radical weight loss properties have captured headlines and driven up patient demand. Meanwhile, doctors are finally able to offer effective treatment for a disease that affects 40% of US adults.

“We are finally treating it as a chronic disease, not as a lifestyle,” said Marcio Griebeler, MD, director of the obesity medicine fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. And “I think it’s fulfilling for physicians,” he said. 

For so long, the advice for obesity was about lifestyle. Move more, eat less, and harness willpower, “which really is a fallacy,” said Kimberly Gudzune, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist and chief medical officer for the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM) Foundation. For people with obesity, “your brain is operating differently,” she said. “Your body really is set up to work against you.” 

Brianna Johnson-Rabbett, MD, medical director of the ABOM, told this news organization that with the advent of GLP-1s, “there’s a clearer recognition that obesity is a disease that needs to be treated like other diseases.” Some of that is thanks to clinical trial data showing that just as with other diseases such as high blood pressure or diabetes, obesity can be treated with medication and it resurges when the medication is stopped, she said.

Doctors don’t have to go looking for patients with obesity, dr. Griebeler added. Now that treatment options exist, they’re showing up in droves at the doctor’s office — all the doctors’ offices. In primary care, endocrinology, surgery, pediatrics — a wide variety of doctors are being asked about obesity drugs, Dr. Griebeler noted.

And while doctors are often just as excited as patients about the potential for treatment, many find themselves under-equipped when it comes to obesity. “More physicians are ... recognizing the value in treating this, and some are realizing, “Oh gosh, I never learned how to do this,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

Information Patients Have Been Waiting For

Medical training has traditionally devoted minimal, if any, curriculum to obesity and metabolism. “To be honest, we didn’t really cover this at all in my training,” said Nina Paddu, MD, obesity medicine specialist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City who finished her training only 2 years ago. “The guidance even in residency was ‘let’s send them to nutrition’ and ‘recommend exercising.’ ”

In addition to the medical education gap, until recently there was a “paucity of robust evidence,” Dr. Srivastava said. Leaders in the field wanted to establish standards and guidelines, but there wasn’t enough strong evidence on obesity and its treatments to build them, she said. 

Only in the last 5 years or so has the evidence-based understanding of obesity’s pathophysiology truly accelerated: The brain’s driving roles, its interplay with hormones, and its interactions with other diseases. “We are just at the cusp of understanding all the different factors,” Dr. Gudzune said.

But already endocrinologists, surgeons, fertility specialists, gynecologists, and oncologists, to name a few, see the critical overlap with their own field. “Conditions were once suspected of being intertwined [with obesity], and now we have data to connect them,” Dr. Srivastava said. For example, there’s now data connecting semaglutide to a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events for people with obesity. That’s a game changer for multiple specialties, she told this news organization. 
 

Getting Trained in Obesity Management

The recent uptick in obesity insights and increased patient need has doctors from every career stage seeking additional training.

The ABOM offers two board certification pathways: 60 hours of CME credits or a 12-month fellowship. Both paths require doctors to pass the board’s exam. 

Many doctors incorporate the training into their existing practice. The CME credit pathway, especially, is designed to help get doctors up to speed without requiring them to upend their lives for a fellowship.

Dr. Srivastava said that the fellowship is more consuming and immersive. While it’s often younger doctors just out of training who apply to fellowship, every year, “I’m astonished at the number of talented physicians with clinical and research experience who want to immerse themselves in a fellowship experience.”

Some doctors return to their previous specialties after fellowship. But many will go on to take obesity medicine–specific roles or set aside clinic hours for obesity medicine. Their credentials are “really attractive to institutions, especially those looking to open up obesity medicine or weight management programs,” said Dr. Srivastava.

Dr. Paddu, who finished her obesity medicine fellowship this year, said there are a variety of obesity medicine jobs to choose from — far different from Dr. Srivastava’s job search 15 years ago. Dr. Paddu’s new role combines 2 days of primary care with 2 days devoted to obesity medicine and 1 day each week set aside for administrative work so she can build up the hospital’s new metabolic health clinic. 
 

Still Not Enough Obesity Specialists

As with all things, rapid growth requires careful oversight. “Part of the responsibility of the board is to think critically of how the field is growing” and conduct ongoing monitoring, Dr. Gudzune said.

This is also why the board’s credentials are time-limited and must be recertified, Dr. Johnson-Rabbett added. 

But even with the rise in certified doctors and obesity medicine positions, the 8263 doctors certified by ABOM are only a tiny fraction of US physicians. As a result, there’s genuine likelihood that many patients seeking GLP-1s or other obesity treatment don’t yet have access to the holistic care they need. Plus, doctors may still not have obesity expertise within their networks.

“The field has grown rapidly, but it’s still such a small field relative to the patient need,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, professor of medicine, pediatrics, and surgery, and medical director of obesity medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was nearly 10 years into practicing pediatric medicine when she graduated from the obesity medicine fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston in 2013. “We were the very first sort of fellows to speak of then; there were no standards or curriculum,” she said.

Obesity was already epidemic, but stigma and bias were still pervasive in the medical community and within the public. After graduating, Dr. Srivastava spent months vying for a position with hospital CEOs. She traveled across the country explaining the specialty and its value, going into detail about the budget, business model, space requirement, and revenue potential of obesity medicine. 

Today marks a very different era.

Obesity medicine is exploding. Patients are spilling into doctors’ offices looking for obesity treatment. Healthcare systems are seeking out obesity specialists and building metabolic health centers. Since 2020, the number of doctors board-certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine has nearly doubled, and the number of obesity medicine fellowships across the country has more than doubled. Next month, another 2115 doctors from primary care, surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, fertility, endocrinology, and beyond will sit for the 2024 exam. The once niche specialty is quickly becoming intertwined with most of modern medicine.
 

The Need to Treat

It’s no mystery that the rapid expansion of obesity medicine coincides with the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of GLP-1 injections. The drugs’ radical weight loss properties have captured headlines and driven up patient demand. Meanwhile, doctors are finally able to offer effective treatment for a disease that affects 40% of US adults.

“We are finally treating it as a chronic disease, not as a lifestyle,” said Marcio Griebeler, MD, director of the obesity medicine fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. And “I think it’s fulfilling for physicians,” he said. 

For so long, the advice for obesity was about lifestyle. Move more, eat less, and harness willpower, “which really is a fallacy,” said Kimberly Gudzune, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist and chief medical officer for the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM) Foundation. For people with obesity, “your brain is operating differently,” she said. “Your body really is set up to work against you.” 

Brianna Johnson-Rabbett, MD, medical director of the ABOM, told this news organization that with the advent of GLP-1s, “there’s a clearer recognition that obesity is a disease that needs to be treated like other diseases.” Some of that is thanks to clinical trial data showing that just as with other diseases such as high blood pressure or diabetes, obesity can be treated with medication and it resurges when the medication is stopped, she said.

Doctors don’t have to go looking for patients with obesity, dr. Griebeler added. Now that treatment options exist, they’re showing up in droves at the doctor’s office — all the doctors’ offices. In primary care, endocrinology, surgery, pediatrics — a wide variety of doctors are being asked about obesity drugs, Dr. Griebeler noted.

And while doctors are often just as excited as patients about the potential for treatment, many find themselves under-equipped when it comes to obesity. “More physicians are ... recognizing the value in treating this, and some are realizing, “Oh gosh, I never learned how to do this,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

Information Patients Have Been Waiting For

Medical training has traditionally devoted minimal, if any, curriculum to obesity and metabolism. “To be honest, we didn’t really cover this at all in my training,” said Nina Paddu, MD, obesity medicine specialist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City who finished her training only 2 years ago. “The guidance even in residency was ‘let’s send them to nutrition’ and ‘recommend exercising.’ ”

In addition to the medical education gap, until recently there was a “paucity of robust evidence,” Dr. Srivastava said. Leaders in the field wanted to establish standards and guidelines, but there wasn’t enough strong evidence on obesity and its treatments to build them, she said. 

Only in the last 5 years or so has the evidence-based understanding of obesity’s pathophysiology truly accelerated: The brain’s driving roles, its interplay with hormones, and its interactions with other diseases. “We are just at the cusp of understanding all the different factors,” Dr. Gudzune said.

But already endocrinologists, surgeons, fertility specialists, gynecologists, and oncologists, to name a few, see the critical overlap with their own field. “Conditions were once suspected of being intertwined [with obesity], and now we have data to connect them,” Dr. Srivastava said. For example, there’s now data connecting semaglutide to a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events for people with obesity. That’s a game changer for multiple specialties, she told this news organization. 
 

Getting Trained in Obesity Management

The recent uptick in obesity insights and increased patient need has doctors from every career stage seeking additional training.

The ABOM offers two board certification pathways: 60 hours of CME credits or a 12-month fellowship. Both paths require doctors to pass the board’s exam. 

Many doctors incorporate the training into their existing practice. The CME credit pathway, especially, is designed to help get doctors up to speed without requiring them to upend their lives for a fellowship.

Dr. Srivastava said that the fellowship is more consuming and immersive. While it’s often younger doctors just out of training who apply to fellowship, every year, “I’m astonished at the number of talented physicians with clinical and research experience who want to immerse themselves in a fellowship experience.”

Some doctors return to their previous specialties after fellowship. But many will go on to take obesity medicine–specific roles or set aside clinic hours for obesity medicine. Their credentials are “really attractive to institutions, especially those looking to open up obesity medicine or weight management programs,” said Dr. Srivastava.

Dr. Paddu, who finished her obesity medicine fellowship this year, said there are a variety of obesity medicine jobs to choose from — far different from Dr. Srivastava’s job search 15 years ago. Dr. Paddu’s new role combines 2 days of primary care with 2 days devoted to obesity medicine and 1 day each week set aside for administrative work so she can build up the hospital’s new metabolic health clinic. 
 

Still Not Enough Obesity Specialists

As with all things, rapid growth requires careful oversight. “Part of the responsibility of the board is to think critically of how the field is growing” and conduct ongoing monitoring, Dr. Gudzune said.

This is also why the board’s credentials are time-limited and must be recertified, Dr. Johnson-Rabbett added. 

But even with the rise in certified doctors and obesity medicine positions, the 8263 doctors certified by ABOM are only a tiny fraction of US physicians. As a result, there’s genuine likelihood that many patients seeking GLP-1s or other obesity treatment don’t yet have access to the holistic care they need. Plus, doctors may still not have obesity expertise within their networks.

“The field has grown rapidly, but it’s still such a small field relative to the patient need,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, professor of medicine, pediatrics, and surgery, and medical director of obesity medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was nearly 10 years into practicing pediatric medicine when she graduated from the obesity medicine fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston in 2013. “We were the very first sort of fellows to speak of then; there were no standards or curriculum,” she said.

Obesity was already epidemic, but stigma and bias were still pervasive in the medical community and within the public. After graduating, Dr. Srivastava spent months vying for a position with hospital CEOs. She traveled across the country explaining the specialty and its value, going into detail about the budget, business model, space requirement, and revenue potential of obesity medicine. 

Today marks a very different era.

Obesity medicine is exploding. Patients are spilling into doctors’ offices looking for obesity treatment. Healthcare systems are seeking out obesity specialists and building metabolic health centers. Since 2020, the number of doctors board-certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine has nearly doubled, and the number of obesity medicine fellowships across the country has more than doubled. Next month, another 2115 doctors from primary care, surgery, orthopedics, pediatrics, fertility, endocrinology, and beyond will sit for the 2024 exam. The once niche specialty is quickly becoming intertwined with most of modern medicine.
 

The Need to Treat

It’s no mystery that the rapid expansion of obesity medicine coincides with the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of GLP-1 injections. The drugs’ radical weight loss properties have captured headlines and driven up patient demand. Meanwhile, doctors are finally able to offer effective treatment for a disease that affects 40% of US adults.

“We are finally treating it as a chronic disease, not as a lifestyle,” said Marcio Griebeler, MD, director of the obesity medicine fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. And “I think it’s fulfilling for physicians,” he said. 

For so long, the advice for obesity was about lifestyle. Move more, eat less, and harness willpower, “which really is a fallacy,” said Kimberly Gudzune, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist and chief medical officer for the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM) Foundation. For people with obesity, “your brain is operating differently,” she said. “Your body really is set up to work against you.” 

Brianna Johnson-Rabbett, MD, medical director of the ABOM, told this news organization that with the advent of GLP-1s, “there’s a clearer recognition that obesity is a disease that needs to be treated like other diseases.” Some of that is thanks to clinical trial data showing that just as with other diseases such as high blood pressure or diabetes, obesity can be treated with medication and it resurges when the medication is stopped, she said.

Doctors don’t have to go looking for patients with obesity, dr. Griebeler added. Now that treatment options exist, they’re showing up in droves at the doctor’s office — all the doctors’ offices. In primary care, endocrinology, surgery, pediatrics — a wide variety of doctors are being asked about obesity drugs, Dr. Griebeler noted.

And while doctors are often just as excited as patients about the potential for treatment, many find themselves under-equipped when it comes to obesity. “More physicians are ... recognizing the value in treating this, and some are realizing, “Oh gosh, I never learned how to do this,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

Information Patients Have Been Waiting For

Medical training has traditionally devoted minimal, if any, curriculum to obesity and metabolism. “To be honest, we didn’t really cover this at all in my training,” said Nina Paddu, MD, obesity medicine specialist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City who finished her training only 2 years ago. “The guidance even in residency was ‘let’s send them to nutrition’ and ‘recommend exercising.’ ”

In addition to the medical education gap, until recently there was a “paucity of robust evidence,” Dr. Srivastava said. Leaders in the field wanted to establish standards and guidelines, but there wasn’t enough strong evidence on obesity and its treatments to build them, she said. 

Only in the last 5 years or so has the evidence-based understanding of obesity’s pathophysiology truly accelerated: The brain’s driving roles, its interplay with hormones, and its interactions with other diseases. “We are just at the cusp of understanding all the different factors,” Dr. Gudzune said.

But already endocrinologists, surgeons, fertility specialists, gynecologists, and oncologists, to name a few, see the critical overlap with their own field. “Conditions were once suspected of being intertwined [with obesity], and now we have data to connect them,” Dr. Srivastava said. For example, there’s now data connecting semaglutide to a 20% reduction in cardiovascular events for people with obesity. That’s a game changer for multiple specialties, she told this news organization. 
 

Getting Trained in Obesity Management

The recent uptick in obesity insights and increased patient need has doctors from every career stage seeking additional training.

The ABOM offers two board certification pathways: 60 hours of CME credits or a 12-month fellowship. Both paths require doctors to pass the board’s exam. 

Many doctors incorporate the training into their existing practice. The CME credit pathway, especially, is designed to help get doctors up to speed without requiring them to upend their lives for a fellowship.

Dr. Srivastava said that the fellowship is more consuming and immersive. While it’s often younger doctors just out of training who apply to fellowship, every year, “I’m astonished at the number of talented physicians with clinical and research experience who want to immerse themselves in a fellowship experience.”

Some doctors return to their previous specialties after fellowship. But many will go on to take obesity medicine–specific roles or set aside clinic hours for obesity medicine. Their credentials are “really attractive to institutions, especially those looking to open up obesity medicine or weight management programs,” said Dr. Srivastava.

Dr. Paddu, who finished her obesity medicine fellowship this year, said there are a variety of obesity medicine jobs to choose from — far different from Dr. Srivastava’s job search 15 years ago. Dr. Paddu’s new role combines 2 days of primary care with 2 days devoted to obesity medicine and 1 day each week set aside for administrative work so she can build up the hospital’s new metabolic health clinic. 
 

Still Not Enough Obesity Specialists

As with all things, rapid growth requires careful oversight. “Part of the responsibility of the board is to think critically of how the field is growing” and conduct ongoing monitoring, Dr. Gudzune said.

This is also why the board’s credentials are time-limited and must be recertified, Dr. Johnson-Rabbett added. 

But even with the rise in certified doctors and obesity medicine positions, the 8263 doctors certified by ABOM are only a tiny fraction of US physicians. As a result, there’s genuine likelihood that many patients seeking GLP-1s or other obesity treatment don’t yet have access to the holistic care they need. Plus, doctors may still not have obesity expertise within their networks.

“The field has grown rapidly, but it’s still such a small field relative to the patient need,” said Dr. Gudzune.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist. 

The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone. 

At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.

So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?

DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.

Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.

So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low. 

In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.

I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies. 

On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.

Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.

Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m². It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m². Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.

Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.

As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however. 

Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study. 

Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.

Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly. 

Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
 

Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Roche Diabetes Care; Roche Diagnostics; Sanofi. Received funding for conference registration and subsistence from: Menarini; Daiichi Sankyo.

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

Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist. 

The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone. 

At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.

So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?

DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.

Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.

So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low. 

In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.

I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies. 

On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.

Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.

Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m². It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m². Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.

Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.

As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however. 

Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study. 

Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.

Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly. 

Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
 

Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Roche Diabetes Care; Roche Diagnostics; Sanofi. Received funding for conference registration and subsistence from: Menarini; Daiichi Sankyo.

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

Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist. 

The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone. 

At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.

So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?

DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.

Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.

So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low. 

In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.

I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies. 

On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.

Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.

Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m². It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m². Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.

Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.

As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however. 

Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study. 

Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.

Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly. 

Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
 

Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Roche Diabetes Care; Roche Diagnostics; Sanofi. Received funding for conference registration and subsistence from: Menarini; Daiichi Sankyo.

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

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Diabetes is associated with a lower incidence of uterine fibroids in midlife women receiving diabetes treatment, especially metformin. The association between diabetes and the risk for uterine fibroids may vary based on menopausal status.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have provided inconsistent evidence regarding associations between the risk for uterine fibroids and markers of cardiometabolic health, such as fasting insulin, fasting glucose, and diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the association of fasting levels of cardiometabolic blood biomarkers, diabetes, and diabetes treatment with the incidence of new fibroid diagnoses in midlife women.
• They included participants from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation cohort who reported fibroid diagnoses at enrollment and during 13 follow-up visits.
• At all visits, levels of glucose, insulin, and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) were measured in fasting blood samples, and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated.
• Discrete-time survival models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for the associations of biomarkers and diabetes with fibroid diagnoses, adjusted for demographics and healthcare utilization.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers identified 2570 eligible women (median age, 45 years; 45% perimenopausal women), among whom approximately 3% had diabetes at baseline.
• Diabetes was associated with a 28% lower incidence of new fibroid diagnosis (adjusted HR, 0.72).
• This association was particularly strong among participants with treated diabetes, especially those on metformin, who had a 51% lower incidence of self-reported fibroids than those without diabetes. The estimates, however, had wide CIs suggesting uncertainty.
• Time-varying HOMA-IR and SHBG, insulin, and glucose levels were not significantly associated with the new fibroid diagnosis.
• When stratified by menopausal status, higher HOMA-IR and insulin levels were associated with a greater incidence of fibroid diagnosis during premenopause but not during perimenopause.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings contribute to preliminary evidence indicating a protective association between diabetes and risk of incident fibroids,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Susanna D. Mitro, Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Pleasanton, California, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported fibroid diagnoses, which may result in the misclassification of cases. The sample size of participants with diabetes was small, which resulted in reduced precision and confidence in the findings. The baseline eligibility criteria (midlife participants with an intact uterus and no history of fibroid incidence) may have limited the generalizability of the findings to the wider population at risk for fibroids.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. One author reported being a consultant and adviser for various pharmaceutical companies. Two other authors reported receiving salary support and royalties from various pharmaceutical companies and organizations.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.