MDedge Endocrinology

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

A medical student’s life is an endless cycle of classes, exams, clinical rotations, and residency preparation. While students typically have little free time, some still manage to build a mega social media presence. On TikTok and Instagram, among other sites, they share medical school experiences and lessons learned in the classroom and advocate for causes such as increased diversity and gender rights in the medical field.

This news organization caught up with a few social media influencers with a large online following to learn how medical students can effectively use social media to build a professional brand and network. Most of the students interviewed said that their social media platforms offered an opportunity to educate others about significant medical developments, feel part of a community with a like-minded audience, and network with doctors who may lead them to a future residency or career path.

Many med students said that they built their large audiences by creating a platform for people of their ethnic background, nationality, race, gender, or simply what others weren’t already talking about. They said they saw a niche in social media that was missing or others hadn’t tackled in the same way.

When Joel Bervell began med school in 2020, he questioned some of the lessons he learned about how race is used in medical practice, which didn’t make sense to him. So, he began his own research. He had about 2000 followers on Instagram at the time.

Mr. Bervell read a new study about pulse oximeters and how they often produce misleading readings on patients with dark skin.

He wondered why he hadn’t learned this in medical school, so he posted it on TikTok. Within 24 hours, about 500,000 people viewed it. Most of the comments were from doctors, nurses, and physician assistants who said they weren’t aware of the disparity.

While his initial posts detailed his journey to medical school and a day-in-the-life of a medical student, he transitioned to posts primarily about race, health equity, and what he perceives as racial bias in medicine.

Now, the fourth-year Ghanaian-American student at the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine at Washington State University Spokane has close to 1.2 million followers on Instagram and TikTok combined. He frequently visits the White House to advise on social media’s influence on healthcare and has appeared on the Kelly Clarkson Show, Good Morning America, CNN, and ABC, among others.

He said he also uses social media to translate complex medical information for a general audience, many of whom access health information online so they can manage their own healthcare. He sees his social media work as an extension of his medical education, allowing him to delve deeper into subjects and report on them as if he were publishing research in a medical journal.

“When I came to medical school, yes, I wanted to be a doctor. But I also wanted to impact people.” Social media allows him to educate many more people than individual patients, the 29-year-old told this news organization.
 

Inspiring Minorities

Tabhata Paulet, 27, started her TikTok presence as a premed student in 2021. She aimed to provide free resources to help low-income, first-generation Latinx students like herself study for standardized exams.

“I always looked online for guidance and resources, and the medical influencers did not share a similar background. So, I shared my story and what I had to do as a first-generation and first person in my family to become a physician. I did not have access to the same resources as my peers,” said Ms. Paulet, who was born in Peru and came to New Jersey as a child.

Students who are Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin made up 6.8% of total medical school enrollment in 2023-2024, up slightly from 6.7% in 2022-2023, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Ms. Paulet’s online presence grew when she began documenting her experiences as a first-year medical student, bridging the language barrier for Spanish-speaking patients so they could understand their diagnosis and treatment. She often posts about health disparity and barriers to care for underserved communities.

Most of her nearly 22,000 followers are Hispanic, said the now fourth-year student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark, New Jersey. “I talk a lot about my interesting Spanish-speaking patients ... and how sometimes speaking their native language truly makes a difference in their care.”

She believes that she serves an important role in social media. “It can be very inspirational for those who come after you [in med school] to see someone from a similar culture and upbringing.”
 

Creating a Community

It was during a therapy session 4 years ago that Jeremy “JP” Scott decided to share Instagram posts about his experiences as a nontraditional medical student. The 37-year-old was studying at Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados and was feeling lonely as an international medical student training to be a doctor as a second career.

Before starting med school, Mr. Scott was an adjunct professor and lab supervisor at the University of Hartford Biology Department, West Hartford, Connecticut, and then a research assistant and lab manager at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia.

Although he wanted to follow his mother’s path to becoming a doctor, it was more difficult than he envisioned, said the fourth-year student who completed clinical rotations in the United States and is now applying for residencies.

“I talked about how medical school is not what it appears to be ... There are a lot of challenges we are going through,” especially as people of color, he said.

Mr. Scott believes social media helps people feel included and less alone. He said many of his followers are med students and physicians.

His posts often focus on LGBTQIA+ pride and being a minority as a Black man in medicine.

“The pandemic spurred a lot of us. We had a racial reckoning in our country at the time. It inspired us to talk as Black creators and Black medical students.”

Black or African American medical students made up 8.5% of total med school enrollment in 2023-2024, a slight increase from 2022 to 2023, according to AAMC figures. Black men represented 7% of total enrollment in 2023-2024, while Black women represented 9.8%.

After only a handful of online posts in which Mr. Scott candidly discussed his mental health struggles and relationships, he attracted the attention of several medical apparel companies, including the popular FIGS scrubs. He’s now an ambassador for the company, which supports him and his content.

“My association with FIGS has helped attract a wider online audience, increasing my presence.” Today, he has 14,000 Instagram followers. “It opened up so many opportunities,” Mr. Scott said. One example is working with the national LGBTQIA+ community.

“The goal was never to be a social media influencer, to gain sponsorships or photo opportunities,” he said.

“My job, first, is as a medical student. Everything else is second. I am not trying to be a professional social media personality. I’m trying to be an actual physician.” He also tries to separate JP “social media” from Jeremy, the medical student.

“On Instagram, anyone can pull it up and see what you’re doing. The last thing I want is for them to think that I’m not serious about what I’m doing, that I’m not here to learn and become a doctor.”
 

Benefits and Drawbacks

Ms. Paulet said her social media following helped her connect with leaders in the Latinx medical community, including an obstetrics anesthesiologist, her intended specialty. “I don’t think I’d be able to do that without a social media platform.”

Her online activity also propelled her from regional to national leadership in the Latino Medical Student Association (LMSA). She now also runs their Instagram page, which has 14,000 followers.

Mr. Bervell believes social media is a great way to network. He’s connected with people he wouldn’t have met otherwise, including physicians. “I think it will help me get into a residency,” he said. “It allows people to know who you are ... They will be able to tell in a few videos the type of doctor I want to be.”

On the other hand, Mr. Bervell is aware of the negative impacts of social media on mental health. “You can get lost in social media.” For that reason, he often tries to disconnect. “I can go days without my phone.”

Posting on social media can be time-consuming, Mr. Bervell admitted. He said he spent about 2 hours a day researching, editing, and posting on TikTok when he first started building his following. Now, he spends about 2-3 hours a week creating videos. “I don’t post every day anymore. I don’t have the time.”

When she started building her TikTok presence, Ms. Paulet said she devoted 15 hours a week to the endeavor, but now she spends 10-12 hours a week posting online, including on LMSA’s Instagram page. “Whenever you are done with an exam or have a study break, this is something fun to do.” She also says you never know who you’re going to inspire when you put yourself out there.

“Talk about your journey, rotations, or your experience in your first or second year of medical school. Talk about milestones like board exams.”
 

Word to the Wise

Some students may be concerned that their posts might affect a potential residency program. But the medical students interviewed say they want to find programs that align with their values and accept them for who they are.

Mr. Scott said he’s not worried about someone not liking him because of who he is. “I am Black and openly gay. If it’s a problem, I don’t need to work with you or your institution.”

Mr. Bervell stressed that medical students should stay professional online. “I reach 5-10 million people a month, and I have to think: Would I want them to see this? You have to know at all times that someone is watching. I’m very careful about how I post. I script out every video.”

Mr. Scott agreed. He advises those interested in becoming medical influencers to know what they can’t post online. For example, to ensure safety and privacy, Mr. Scott doesn’t take photos in the hospital, show his medical badge, or post patient information. “You want to be respectful of your future medical profession,” he said.

“If it’s something my mother would be ashamed of, I don’t need to post about it.”
 

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

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians continue to argue that solely focusing on weight in discussions with patients with obesity can be harmful. But with highly effective agents like semaglutide and tirzepatide, more discussions are being had about obesity, in and out of the doctor’s office. 

In this time of new therapeutic options, it’s critical to be thoughtful in how we broach the topic of weight management and obesity treatments with our patients.

With a stigmatized topic like obesity, it’s not surprising that there is contention surrounding the issue. Weight stigma and discrimination persist worldwide, even though there is ample scientific evidence that weight regulation is strongly determined by uncontrollable factors. 

However, the debate to discuss weight or not doesn’t need to be polarized. There is a common denominator: Help patients live healthy, long lives. Let’s review the principles of the various approaches to care.
 

Chronic Disease–Centric Paradigm

Historically, physicians have addressed and managed chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Even though obesity is a known risk factor for these conditions and can cause many other diseases through low-grade chronic inflammation issues and organ dysfunction, weight management treatment was an afterthought or never entertained.

During my training, I often wondered why we focused on prescribing medications for multiple chronic diseases instead of addressing obesity directly, which could potentially improve all these conditions. 

There are numerous reasons why this paradigm was viewed as the “standard of care” for so many decades. First, it provided a framework for managing an ever-growing list of chronic diseases. And even though the American Medical Association declared obesity a disease in 2013, this was not widely accepted in the healthcare community. 

Healthcare systems and the US reimbursement model have been aligned with a chronic disease treatment paradigm. At the same time, healthcare professionals, like others in society, harbor prejudices. These have presented significant barriers to providing weight management care. 

Additionally, medical education was, and remains, inadequate in training physicians how to prevent and treat obesity.
 

Weight-Centric Paradigm

The literature defines a weight-centric approach to care as one that places significant emphasis on body weight as a primary indicator of health — a perspective that may view lower body weight as inherently healthier. This approach includes comprehensive treatment of obesity that factors in lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, procedures, and surgery. A weight-centric approach has been described as having six tenets, examples of which are “weight is mostly volitional and within the control of the individual,” and “excess body weight causes disease and premature death.” This approach heavily relies on body mass index (BMI) as an indicator of a patients’ current and future health status. 

We know that using BMI as a measure of health has inherent limitations. Recent recommendations suggest that it be used alongside other measurements and assessments, such as waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. One major concern with the paradigm, however, is that it can perpetuate weight stigmatization through an overemphasis on weight vs global health. The definition doesn’t acknowledge the wealth of data demonstrating the associated risk increased that central adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. The answer needs to be more nuanced.

Instead of watering down a “weight-centric approach” to be equated with “weight equals health,” I propose it could mean addressing obesity upstream (ie, an adipose-centric approach) to prevent associated morbidity and mortality downstream. 

Also, measuring a patient’s weight in the clinic would be an impartial act, obtaining a routine data point, like measuring a person’s blood pressure. Just as it is necessary to obtain a patient’s blood pressure data to treat hypertension, it is necessary to obtain adiposity health-related data (eg, weight, waist circumference, neck circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, weight history, physical exam, lab tests) to make informed clinical decisions and safeguard delivery of evidence-based care. 

A weight-centric approach is a positive shift from focusing solely on chronic diseases because it allows us to address obesity and explore treatment options. However, challenges remain with this approach in ensuring that weight management discussions are handled holistically, without bias, and with sensitivity. 
 

Weight-Inclusive Paradigm

A weight-inclusive approach promotes overall health and well-being while providing nonstigmatizing care to patients. There is an emphasis on respect for body diversity, with advocacy for body size acceptance and body positivity. When I use this approach in my clinical practice, I emphasize to patients that the ultimate goal we are striving for is improved health and not a particular number on the scale or particular body type. 

This approach supports equal treatment and access to healthcare for all individuals. At its core, the weight inclusive paradigm is a holistic, nonbiased approach to all patients, regardless of body size. For this reason, I use a patient-centered treatment plan with my patients that is comprehensive, is multipronged, and considers all tools available in the toolbox indicated for that individual. 

The weight-inclusive paradigm has much in common with the principles of Health at Every Size. Both share common goals of focusing on health rather than weight, challenging weight stigma and weight discrimination.

Because a weight-inclusive approach encourages body acceptance, some contend that this leads to disregard of the risk that visceral adiposity poses for increased morbidity and mortality. But this is not an either/or situation. Healthcare professionals can accept individuals for who they are regardless of body size and, with patient permission, address obesity in the context of broader health considerations with an individualized, patient-centered treatment plan.
 

Human-Inclusive and Health-Centered Paradigm

Appreciating the evolution of healthcare delivery paradigms, and with greater understanding of the pathophysiology of obesity and arrival of newer, effective treatments, I propose a human-inclusive and health-centered (HIHC) approach to patient care. This model weaves together the fundamental theme of a focus on health, not weight, and aligns with the Hippocratic Oath: to treat patients to the best of our ability and do no harm. 

Unfortunately, history has played out differently. Owing to a confluence of variables, from a lack of training in obesity treatment to a societal obsession with thinness that fosters an anti-fat bias culture, patients have unduly endured tremendous shame and blame for living with overweight and obesity over the years. Now is our chance to do better.

It is our responsibility as healthcare professionals to provide bias-free, patient-centered care to each and every patient, no matter their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or body shape and size. Why limit the phrasing to “weight inclusive” when we should strive for a “human inclusive” approach?

When it comes to discussing weight with patients, there is no universally established methodology to introducing the topic. Still, recommended strategies do exist. And we know that individuals with obesity who experience weight bias and stigma have increased morbidity and mortality, regardless of their weight or BMI.

Hence, we must generate compassionate and respectful conversations, free of judgment and bias, when discussing obesity and obesity treatments with patients. Let’s ensure we broaden the discussion beyond weight; acknowledge social determinants of health; and empower individuals to make choices that support their overall health, functionality, and quality of life. 

As we embark on an HIHC paradigm, it will be important not to swing into healthism, whereby those who aren’t healthy or those who don’t pursue health are stigmatized as being less-than. Preserving dignity means accepting patient autonomy and choices. 

I think we all want the same thing: acceptance of all, access to healthcare for all, and bias-free support of patients to live healthy lives. Let’s do this.

Dr. Velazquez, assistant professor of surgery and medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and director of obesity medicine, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health, Los Angeles, California, disclosed ties with Intellihealth, Weight Watchers, Novo Nordisk, and Lilly. She received a research grant from NIH Grant — National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT0517662).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

TOPLINE:

Around one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with a high body mass index (BMI) may be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment after Medicare allowed Part D plans to cover the drug for patients with a BMI ≥ 27 and a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of their diabetes status.

METHODOLOGY:

• In March 2024, Medicare approved the coverage of semaglutide by Part D plans for patients with a high BMI and existing CVD, irrespective of their diabetes status. This decision follows the SELECT trial results, showing that semaglutide lowered the risk for cardiovascular events in some patients without diabetes.
• This study aimed to describe the Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide treatment and estimated maximum costs to Medicare Part D.
• The researchers included 5111 individuals aged ≥ 65 years with self-reported Medicare enrollment in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2011 and 2020, all of whom had a BMI ≥ 27 and were likely to benefit from semaglutide treatment.
• They evaluated the following potential definitions of established CVD that could be considered by the Part D plan: physician-provided diagnosis of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, or angina; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD between 7.5% and < 20.0%; a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic CVD of ≥ 20%; or fulfillment of any of the previous three criteria.
• Data on interview responses, medication use, clinical examinations, laboratory results, and diabetes diagnoses were obtained from the participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• This study found that 3.6 million individuals (14.2%) were deemed highly likely to qualify for semaglutide treatment for the first time, and broadening the criteria for established CVD could increase this number to 15.2 million individuals (60.9%).
• If all newly eligible beneficiaries were to receive semaglutide treatment, Medicare spending could increase by $34-$145 billion annually.
• Even with more conservative definitions of CVD and a significant portion of individuals not maintaining long-term adherence to semaglutide treatment, costs could still increase by $10 billion annually.
• Younger, generally healthier, female Medicare beneficiaries were still likely to remain ineligible for semaglutide treatment according to the coverage provided by Part D Medicare plans.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although approximately one in seven Medicare beneficiaries with elevated BMI is likely to be newly eligible for semaglutide, the majority will remain ineligible if a narrow definition of established CVD is used by Part D plans. Weight control has benefits for patients with elevated BMI, so the definition of established CVD used by Part D plans for coverage of semaglutide could have outsized public health implications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS: 

This analysis relied on self-reported cases of CVD. The study was also limited to only community-dwelling adults. It estimated maximum budgetary impacts but did not account for payment reforms introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act or for absolute contraindications to semaglutide.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, serving as consultants, and having other ties with some institutions.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

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