Clinician Reviews

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

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

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.