MDedge Endocrinology

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

Poorer physical function, not poorer bone mineral density (BMD), could be the principal reason for the increased fracture risk in older women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a Swedish prospective observational study in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted in more than 3000 Swedish women by Mattias Lorentzon, MD, a professor of geriatric medicine at Gothenburg University, and chief physician at the Osteoporosis Clinic at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Mölndal, and colleagues.

Study Details

A fractures study was performed in the Gothenburg area from March 2013 to May 2016 with follow-up of incident fracture data completed in March 2023. Data were collected from questionnaires and through examination of anthropometrics, physical function, and bone measurements using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and high-resolution peripheral computed tomography. A subsample underwent bone microindentation to assess BMSi.

Among the cohort’s 3008 women, ages 75-80 (mean, 77.8), 294 patients with T2D were compared with 2714 same-age unaffected women.

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 1071 incident fractures, 853 major osteoporotic fractures, and 232 hip fractures occurred. In models adjusted for age, BMI, clinical risk factors, and femoral neck BMD, T2D was associated with an increased risk of any fracture: hazard ratio (HR), 1.26; (95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and major osteoporotic fracture (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56).

Most fractures were due to falls, with the most common affected sites being the forearm, upper arm, spine, and hip, Dr. Lorentzon said.

Among the findings:

• In bone microarchitecture, women with T2D had higher BMD at all sites: total hip, 4.4% higher; femoral neck, 4.9% higher; and lumbar spine, 5.2% higher.
• At the tibia, the T2D group had 7.4% greater cortical area and 1.3% greater density, as well as 8.7% higher trabecular bone volume fraction.

“Our findings regarding BMD are consistent with previous publications showing higher BMD in individuals with T2D compared with those without diabetes,” Dr. Lorentzon said. A 2012 meta-analysis, for example, showed higher BMD levels in T2D patients. “Some smaller studies, however, have found worse bone microstructure and lower bone material strength in contrast to the results from our study,” Dr. Lorentzon said.

• There was no difference in BMSi, with a mean of 78 in both groups.
• The T2D group had lower performance on all physical function tests: a 9.7% lower grip strength, 9.9% slower gait speed, and 13.9% slower timed up-and-go time than women without diabetes.

“We found all parameters regarding physical function, such as muscle strength, balance, and performance, were much worse in women with diabetes than in those without,” Dr. Lorentzon said. “Dizziness could also be a contributor to the increased risk of falls, but this factor was not investigated in our study.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Anthony J. Pick, MD, an endocrinologist at Northwestern Medicine Lake Forest Hospital in Lake Forest, Illinois, said sarcopenia is a common and often under-recognized problem in older adults and is especially prevalent in T2D, obesity, and heart failure. “I believe that ‘exercise is medicine’ is a key concept for metabolic and osteoporosis patients — and wellness and longevity in general — and I certainly hope studies like this drive awareness of the importance of engaging in strengthening exercises.”

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — As increasing data show benefit for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices beyond just insulin-treated diabetes, efforts are being made to optimize the use of CGM in primary care settings.

Currently, Medicare and most private insurers cover CGM for people with diabetes who use insulin, regardless of the type of diabetes or the type of insulin, and for those with a history of severe hypoglycemia. Data are increasingly showing benefit for people who don’t use insulin. As of now, with the exception of some state Medicaid beneficiaries, the majority must pay out of pocket.

Such use is expected to grow with the upcoming availability of two new over-the-counter CGMs, Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Libre Rio, both made for people with diabetes who don’t use insulin. (Abbott will also launch the Lingo, a wellness CGM for people without diabetes.)

This means that CGM will become increasingly prevalent in primary care, where there is currently a great deal of variability in the capacity to manage and use the data generated by the devices to improve diabetes management, experts said during an oral abstract session at the recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and in interviews with this news organization.

“It’s picking up steam, and there’s a lot more visibility of CGM in primary care and a lot more people prescribing it,” Thomas W. Martens, MD, medical director of the International Diabetes Center at HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, told this news organization. He noted that the recent switch in many cases of CGM from billing as durable medical equipment to pharmacy has made prescribing easier, while television advertising has increased demand.

But still unclear, he noted, is how the CGM data are being used. “The question is, are prescriptions just being sent out and people using it like a finger-stick blood glucose monitor, or is primary care really using the data to move diabetes forward? I think that’s where a lot of the work on dissemination and implementation is going. How do we really make this a useful tool for optimizing diabetes care?”
 

Informing Food Choice, Treatment Intensification

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Martens presented topline data from a randomized multicenter controlled trial funded by Abbott, examining the effect of CGM use on guiding food choices and other behaviors in 72 adults with type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin but who were using other glucose-lowering medications.

At 3 months, with no medication changes, there was a significant overall 26% reduction in time spent above 180 mg/dL (P < .0001), which didn›t differ significantly between those randomized to CGM alone or in conjunction with a food logging app. Both groups also experienced a significant 1.1% reduction in A1c (P < .0001) and about a 4-lb weight loss (P = .014 for CGM alone, P = .0032 for CGM + app).

“The win for people not on insulin is you can see the impact of food choices really quickly with a CGM ... and then perhaps modify that to improve postprandial hyperglycemia,” Dr. Martens said.

And for the clinician, “not everybody with type 2 diabetes not on insulin can get where they need to be just by changing their diets. The CGM is a pretty good tool for knowing when you need to advance therapy.”
 

Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCESs) Assist CGM Use

Another speaker at the ADA meeting, Sean M. Oser, MD, director of the Practice Innovation Program and associated director of the Primary Care Diabetes Lab at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, noted that 90% of adults with type 2 diabetes and 50% with type 1 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings.

“CGM is increasingly becoming standard of care in diabetes ... But [primary care providers] remain relatively untrained about CGM ... What I’m concerned about is the disparity disparities in who has access and who does not. We really need to bring our primary care colleagues along,” he said.

Dr. Oser described tools he and his wife, Tamara K. Oser, MD, professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the same institution, developed in conjunction with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), including the Transformation in Practice series (TIPS).

The PREPARE 4 CGM study examined the use of three different strategies for incorporating CGM into primary care settings: Either use of AAFP TIPS alone, TIPS plus practice facilitation services by coaches who assist the practice in implementing new workflows, or referral to a virtual CGM initiation service (virCIS) with a virtual CGM workshop that Dr. Oser and Dr. Oser also developed.

Of the 76 Colorado primary care practices participating (out of 60 planned), the 46 who chose AAFP TIPS were randomized to either the AAFP TIPS alone or to TIPS + practice facilitation. The other 30 chose virCIS with the onetime CGM basics webinar. The fact that more practices than anticipated were recruited for the study suggests that “primary care interest in CGM is very high. They want to learn,” Dr. Oser noted.

Of the 51 practice characteristics investigated, only one, the presence of a DCES, in the practice, was significantly associated with the choice of CGM implementation strategy. Of the 16 practices with access to a DCES, all of them chose self-initiation with CGM using TIPS. But of the 60 practices without a DCES, half chose the virCIS.

“We know that 36% of primary care practices have access to a DCES within the clinic, part-time or full-time, and that’s not enough, I would argue,” Dr. Oser said.

Indeed, Dr. Martens told this news organization that those professionals, formerly called “diabetes educators,” often aren’t available in primary care settings, especially in rural areas. “Unfortunately, they are not well reimbursed. A lot of care systems don’t employ as many as they ideally should because it tends not to be a moneymaker ... Something’s got to change with reimbursement for the cognitive aspects of diabetes management.”

Dr. Oser said his team’s next steps include completion of the virCIS operations, analysis of the effectiveness of the three implantation strategies in practice- and patient-level outcomes, a cost analysis of the three strategies, and further development of toolkits to assist in these efforts.

“One of our goals is to keep people at their primary care home, where they want to be ... Diabetes knows no borders. People should have access wherever they are,” Dr. Oser concluded in his ADA talk.
 

What Predicts Primary Care CGM Prescribing?

Further clues about effective strategies to improve CGM prescribing in primary care were provided in a study presented by Jovan Milosavljevic, MD, a second-year endocrinology fellow at the Fleischer Institute for Diabetes and Metabolism, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.

He began by noting that there are currently 61.5 million diabetes visits annually in primary care compared with 32.0 million in specialty care and that there is a shortage of endocrinologists in the face of the rising number of people diagnosed with diabetes. “Primary care will continue to be the only point of care for most people with diabetes. So, standard-of-care treatment such as CGM must enter routine primary care practice to impact population-level health outcomes.”

Electronic health record data were examined for 39,710 patients with type 2 diabetes seen at 13 primary care sites affiliated with Montefiore Medical Center, a large safety net hospital in New York, where CGM is widely covered by public insurance. Between July 31, 2020, and July 31, 2023, a total of 3503, or just 8.8%, were prescribed CGM by a primary care provider.

Those with CGM prescribed were younger than those without (59.7 vs 62.7 years), about 40% of both groups were Hispanic or Black, and a majority were English-speaking: 84.5% of those prescribed CGM spoke English, while only 13.1% spoke Spanish. Over half (59.1%) of those prescribed CGM had commercial insurance, while only 11.2% had Medicaid and 29.7% had Medicare.

More patients with CGM prescribed had providers with more than 10 years in practice: 72.5% vs 64.5% with no CGM.

Not surprisingly, those with CGM prescribed were more likely on insulin — 21% using just basal and 35% on multiple daily injections. Those prescribed CGM had higher A1c levels before CGM prescription: 9.2% vs 7.2% for those not prescribed CGM.

No racial or ethnic bias was found in the relationships between CGM use and insulin use, provider experience, engagement with care, and A1c. However, there were differences by age, sex, and spoken language.

For example, the Hispanic group aged 65 years and older was less likely than those younger to be prescribed CGM, but this wasn’t seen in other ethnic groups. In fact, older White people were slightly more likely to have CGM prescribed. Spanish-speaking patients were about 43% less likely to have CGM prescribed than were English-speaking patients.

These findings suggest a dual approach might work best for improving CGM prescribing in primary care. “We can leverage the knowledge that some of these factors are independent of bias and promote clinical and evidence-based guidelines for CGM. Additionally, we should focus on physicians in training,” Dr. Milosavljevic said.

At the same time, “we need to tackle systemic inequity in prescription processes,” with measures such as improving prescription workflows, supporting prior authorization, and using patient hands-on support for older adults and Spanish-speaking individuals, he said.

In a message to this news organization, Tamara K. Oser, MD, wrote, “Disparities in CGM and other diabetes technology are prevalent and multifactorial. In addition to insurance barriers, implicit bias also plays a large role. Shared decision-making should always be used when deciding to prescribe diabetes technologies.”

The PREPARE 4 CGM study is evaluating willingness to pay for CGM, she noted.

“Even patients without insurance might want to purchase one sensor every few months to empower them to learn more about how food and exercise affect their glucose or to help assess the need for [adjusting] diabetes medications. It is an exciting time for people living with diabetes. Primary care, endocrinology, device manufacturers, and insurers should all do their part to assure increased access to these evidence-based technologies.”

Dr. Martens’ employer has received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk, and for consulting from Sanofi and Eli Lilly and Company. He is employed by the nonprofit HealthPartners Institute dba International Diabetes Center and received no personal income from these activities.

The Osers have received advisory board consulting fees (through the University of Colorado) from Dexcom, Medscape Medical News, Ascensia, and Blue Circle Health and research grants (through the University of Colorado) from National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, and Insulet. They do not own stocks in any device or pharmaceutical company.

Dr. Milosavljevic’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science and Einstein-Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science Awards. He had no further disclosures.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — As increasing data show benefit for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices beyond just insulin-treated diabetes, efforts are being made to optimize the use of CGM in primary care settings.

Currently, Medicare and most private insurers cover CGM for people with diabetes who use insulin, regardless of the type of diabetes or the type of insulin, and for those with a history of severe hypoglycemia. Data are increasingly showing benefit for people who don’t use insulin. As of now, with the exception of some state Medicaid beneficiaries, the majority must pay out of pocket.

Such use is expected to grow with the upcoming availability of two new over-the-counter CGMs, Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Libre Rio, both made for people with diabetes who don’t use insulin. (Abbott will also launch the Lingo, a wellness CGM for people without diabetes.)

This means that CGM will become increasingly prevalent in primary care, where there is currently a great deal of variability in the capacity to manage and use the data generated by the devices to improve diabetes management, experts said during an oral abstract session at the recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and in interviews with this news organization.

“It’s picking up steam, and there’s a lot more visibility of CGM in primary care and a lot more people prescribing it,” Thomas W. Martens, MD, medical director of the International Diabetes Center at HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, told this news organization. He noted that the recent switch in many cases of CGM from billing as durable medical equipment to pharmacy has made prescribing easier, while television advertising has increased demand.

But still unclear, he noted, is how the CGM data are being used. “The question is, are prescriptions just being sent out and people using it like a finger-stick blood glucose monitor, or is primary care really using the data to move diabetes forward? I think that’s where a lot of the work on dissemination and implementation is going. How do we really make this a useful tool for optimizing diabetes care?”
 

Informing Food Choice, Treatment Intensification

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Martens presented topline data from a randomized multicenter controlled trial funded by Abbott, examining the effect of CGM use on guiding food choices and other behaviors in 72 adults with type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin but who were using other glucose-lowering medications.

At 3 months, with no medication changes, there was a significant overall 26% reduction in time spent above 180 mg/dL (P < .0001), which didn›t differ significantly between those randomized to CGM alone or in conjunction with a food logging app. Both groups also experienced a significant 1.1% reduction in A1c (P < .0001) and about a 4-lb weight loss (P = .014 for CGM alone, P = .0032 for CGM + app).

“The win for people not on insulin is you can see the impact of food choices really quickly with a CGM ... and then perhaps modify that to improve postprandial hyperglycemia,” Dr. Martens said.

And for the clinician, “not everybody with type 2 diabetes not on insulin can get where they need to be just by changing their diets. The CGM is a pretty good tool for knowing when you need to advance therapy.”
 

Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCESs) Assist CGM Use

Another speaker at the ADA meeting, Sean M. Oser, MD, director of the Practice Innovation Program and associated director of the Primary Care Diabetes Lab at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, noted that 90% of adults with type 2 diabetes and 50% with type 1 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings.

“CGM is increasingly becoming standard of care in diabetes ... But [primary care providers] remain relatively untrained about CGM ... What I’m concerned about is the disparity disparities in who has access and who does not. We really need to bring our primary care colleagues along,” he said.

Dr. Oser described tools he and his wife, Tamara K. Oser, MD, professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the same institution, developed in conjunction with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), including the Transformation in Practice series (TIPS).

The PREPARE 4 CGM study examined the use of three different strategies for incorporating CGM into primary care settings: Either use of AAFP TIPS alone, TIPS plus practice facilitation services by coaches who assist the practice in implementing new workflows, or referral to a virtual CGM initiation service (virCIS) with a virtual CGM workshop that Dr. Oser and Dr. Oser also developed.

Of the 76 Colorado primary care practices participating (out of 60 planned), the 46 who chose AAFP TIPS were randomized to either the AAFP TIPS alone or to TIPS + practice facilitation. The other 30 chose virCIS with the onetime CGM basics webinar. The fact that more practices than anticipated were recruited for the study suggests that “primary care interest in CGM is very high. They want to learn,” Dr. Oser noted.

Of the 51 practice characteristics investigated, only one, the presence of a DCES, in the practice, was significantly associated with the choice of CGM implementation strategy. Of the 16 practices with access to a DCES, all of them chose self-initiation with CGM using TIPS. But of the 60 practices without a DCES, half chose the virCIS.

“We know that 36% of primary care practices have access to a DCES within the clinic, part-time or full-time, and that’s not enough, I would argue,” Dr. Oser said.

Indeed, Dr. Martens told this news organization that those professionals, formerly called “diabetes educators,” often aren’t available in primary care settings, especially in rural areas. “Unfortunately, they are not well reimbursed. A lot of care systems don’t employ as many as they ideally should because it tends not to be a moneymaker ... Something’s got to change with reimbursement for the cognitive aspects of diabetes management.”

Dr. Oser said his team’s next steps include completion of the virCIS operations, analysis of the effectiveness of the three implantation strategies in practice- and patient-level outcomes, a cost analysis of the three strategies, and further development of toolkits to assist in these efforts.

“One of our goals is to keep people at their primary care home, where they want to be ... Diabetes knows no borders. People should have access wherever they are,” Dr. Oser concluded in his ADA talk.
 

What Predicts Primary Care CGM Prescribing?

Further clues about effective strategies to improve CGM prescribing in primary care were provided in a study presented by Jovan Milosavljevic, MD, a second-year endocrinology fellow at the Fleischer Institute for Diabetes and Metabolism, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.

He began by noting that there are currently 61.5 million diabetes visits annually in primary care compared with 32.0 million in specialty care and that there is a shortage of endocrinologists in the face of the rising number of people diagnosed with diabetes. “Primary care will continue to be the only point of care for most people with diabetes. So, standard-of-care treatment such as CGM must enter routine primary care practice to impact population-level health outcomes.”

Electronic health record data were examined for 39,710 patients with type 2 diabetes seen at 13 primary care sites affiliated with Montefiore Medical Center, a large safety net hospital in New York, where CGM is widely covered by public insurance. Between July 31, 2020, and July 31, 2023, a total of 3503, or just 8.8%, were prescribed CGM by a primary care provider.

Those with CGM prescribed were younger than those without (59.7 vs 62.7 years), about 40% of both groups were Hispanic or Black, and a majority were English-speaking: 84.5% of those prescribed CGM spoke English, while only 13.1% spoke Spanish. Over half (59.1%) of those prescribed CGM had commercial insurance, while only 11.2% had Medicaid and 29.7% had Medicare.

More patients with CGM prescribed had providers with more than 10 years in practice: 72.5% vs 64.5% with no CGM.

Not surprisingly, those with CGM prescribed were more likely on insulin — 21% using just basal and 35% on multiple daily injections. Those prescribed CGM had higher A1c levels before CGM prescription: 9.2% vs 7.2% for those not prescribed CGM.

No racial or ethnic bias was found in the relationships between CGM use and insulin use, provider experience, engagement with care, and A1c. However, there were differences by age, sex, and spoken language.

For example, the Hispanic group aged 65 years and older was less likely than those younger to be prescribed CGM, but this wasn’t seen in other ethnic groups. In fact, older White people were slightly more likely to have CGM prescribed. Spanish-speaking patients were about 43% less likely to have CGM prescribed than were English-speaking patients.

These findings suggest a dual approach might work best for improving CGM prescribing in primary care. “We can leverage the knowledge that some of these factors are independent of bias and promote clinical and evidence-based guidelines for CGM. Additionally, we should focus on physicians in training,” Dr. Milosavljevic said.

At the same time, “we need to tackle systemic inequity in prescription processes,” with measures such as improving prescription workflows, supporting prior authorization, and using patient hands-on support for older adults and Spanish-speaking individuals, he said.

In a message to this news organization, Tamara K. Oser, MD, wrote, “Disparities in CGM and other diabetes technology are prevalent and multifactorial. In addition to insurance barriers, implicit bias also plays a large role. Shared decision-making should always be used when deciding to prescribe diabetes technologies.”

The PREPARE 4 CGM study is evaluating willingness to pay for CGM, she noted.

“Even patients without insurance might want to purchase one sensor every few months to empower them to learn more about how food and exercise affect their glucose or to help assess the need for [adjusting] diabetes medications. It is an exciting time for people living with diabetes. Primary care, endocrinology, device manufacturers, and insurers should all do their part to assure increased access to these evidence-based technologies.”

Dr. Martens’ employer has received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk, and for consulting from Sanofi and Eli Lilly and Company. He is employed by the nonprofit HealthPartners Institute dba International Diabetes Center and received no personal income from these activities.

The Osers have received advisory board consulting fees (through the University of Colorado) from Dexcom, Medscape Medical News, Ascensia, and Blue Circle Health and research grants (through the University of Colorado) from National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, and Insulet. They do not own stocks in any device or pharmaceutical company.

Dr. Milosavljevic’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science and Einstein-Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science Awards. He had no further disclosures.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — As increasing data show benefit for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices beyond just insulin-treated diabetes, efforts are being made to optimize the use of CGM in primary care settings.

Currently, Medicare and most private insurers cover CGM for people with diabetes who use insulin, regardless of the type of diabetes or the type of insulin, and for those with a history of severe hypoglycemia. Data are increasingly showing benefit for people who don’t use insulin. As of now, with the exception of some state Medicaid beneficiaries, the majority must pay out of pocket.

Such use is expected to grow with the upcoming availability of two new over-the-counter CGMs, Dexcom’s Stelo and Abbott’s Libre Rio, both made for people with diabetes who don’t use insulin. (Abbott will also launch the Lingo, a wellness CGM for people without diabetes.)

This means that CGM will become increasingly prevalent in primary care, where there is currently a great deal of variability in the capacity to manage and use the data generated by the devices to improve diabetes management, experts said during an oral abstract session at the recent American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and in interviews with this news organization.

“It’s picking up steam, and there’s a lot more visibility of CGM in primary care and a lot more people prescribing it,” Thomas W. Martens, MD, medical director of the International Diabetes Center at HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, told this news organization. He noted that the recent switch in many cases of CGM from billing as durable medical equipment to pharmacy has made prescribing easier, while television advertising has increased demand.

But still unclear, he noted, is how the CGM data are being used. “The question is, are prescriptions just being sent out and people using it like a finger-stick blood glucose monitor, or is primary care really using the data to move diabetes forward? I think that’s where a lot of the work on dissemination and implementation is going. How do we really make this a useful tool for optimizing diabetes care?”
 

Informing Food Choice, Treatment Intensification

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Martens presented topline data from a randomized multicenter controlled trial funded by Abbott, examining the effect of CGM use on guiding food choices and other behaviors in 72 adults with type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin but who were using other glucose-lowering medications.

At 3 months, with no medication changes, there was a significant overall 26% reduction in time spent above 180 mg/dL (P < .0001), which didn›t differ significantly between those randomized to CGM alone or in conjunction with a food logging app. Both groups also experienced a significant 1.1% reduction in A1c (P < .0001) and about a 4-lb weight loss (P = .014 for CGM alone, P = .0032 for CGM + app).

“The win for people not on insulin is you can see the impact of food choices really quickly with a CGM ... and then perhaps modify that to improve postprandial hyperglycemia,” Dr. Martens said.

And for the clinician, “not everybody with type 2 diabetes not on insulin can get where they need to be just by changing their diets. The CGM is a pretty good tool for knowing when you need to advance therapy.”
 

Diabetes Care and Education Specialists (DCESs) Assist CGM Use

Another speaker at the ADA meeting, Sean M. Oser, MD, director of the Practice Innovation Program and associated director of the Primary Care Diabetes Lab at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, noted that 90% of adults with type 2 diabetes and 50% with type 1 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings.

“CGM is increasingly becoming standard of care in diabetes ... But [primary care providers] remain relatively untrained about CGM ... What I’m concerned about is the disparity disparities in who has access and who does not. We really need to bring our primary care colleagues along,” he said.

Dr. Oser described tools he and his wife, Tamara K. Oser, MD, professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the same institution, developed in conjunction with the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), including the Transformation in Practice series (TIPS).

The PREPARE 4 CGM study examined the use of three different strategies for incorporating CGM into primary care settings: Either use of AAFP TIPS alone, TIPS plus practice facilitation services by coaches who assist the practice in implementing new workflows, or referral to a virtual CGM initiation service (virCIS) with a virtual CGM workshop that Dr. Oser and Dr. Oser also developed.

Of the 76 Colorado primary care practices participating (out of 60 planned), the 46 who chose AAFP TIPS were randomized to either the AAFP TIPS alone or to TIPS + practice facilitation. The other 30 chose virCIS with the onetime CGM basics webinar. The fact that more practices than anticipated were recruited for the study suggests that “primary care interest in CGM is very high. They want to learn,” Dr. Oser noted.

Of the 51 practice characteristics investigated, only one, the presence of a DCES, in the practice, was significantly associated with the choice of CGM implementation strategy. Of the 16 practices with access to a DCES, all of them chose self-initiation with CGM using TIPS. But of the 60 practices without a DCES, half chose the virCIS.

“We know that 36% of primary care practices have access to a DCES within the clinic, part-time or full-time, and that’s not enough, I would argue,” Dr. Oser said.

Indeed, Dr. Martens told this news organization that those professionals, formerly called “diabetes educators,” often aren’t available in primary care settings, especially in rural areas. “Unfortunately, they are not well reimbursed. A lot of care systems don’t employ as many as they ideally should because it tends not to be a moneymaker ... Something’s got to change with reimbursement for the cognitive aspects of diabetes management.”

Dr. Oser said his team’s next steps include completion of the virCIS operations, analysis of the effectiveness of the three implantation strategies in practice- and patient-level outcomes, a cost analysis of the three strategies, and further development of toolkits to assist in these efforts.

“One of our goals is to keep people at their primary care home, where they want to be ... Diabetes knows no borders. People should have access wherever they are,” Dr. Oser concluded in his ADA talk.
 

What Predicts Primary Care CGM Prescribing?

Further clues about effective strategies to improve CGM prescribing in primary care were provided in a study presented by Jovan Milosavljevic, MD, a second-year endocrinology fellow at the Fleischer Institute for Diabetes and Metabolism, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.

He began by noting that there are currently 61.5 million diabetes visits annually in primary care compared with 32.0 million in specialty care and that there is a shortage of endocrinologists in the face of the rising number of people diagnosed with diabetes. “Primary care will continue to be the only point of care for most people with diabetes. So, standard-of-care treatment such as CGM must enter routine primary care practice to impact population-level health outcomes.”

Electronic health record data were examined for 39,710 patients with type 2 diabetes seen at 13 primary care sites affiliated with Montefiore Medical Center, a large safety net hospital in New York, where CGM is widely covered by public insurance. Between July 31, 2020, and July 31, 2023, a total of 3503, or just 8.8%, were prescribed CGM by a primary care provider.

Those with CGM prescribed were younger than those without (59.7 vs 62.7 years), about 40% of both groups were Hispanic or Black, and a majority were English-speaking: 84.5% of those prescribed CGM spoke English, while only 13.1% spoke Spanish. Over half (59.1%) of those prescribed CGM had commercial insurance, while only 11.2% had Medicaid and 29.7% had Medicare.

More patients with CGM prescribed had providers with more than 10 years in practice: 72.5% vs 64.5% with no CGM.

Not surprisingly, those with CGM prescribed were more likely on insulin — 21% using just basal and 35% on multiple daily injections. Those prescribed CGM had higher A1c levels before CGM prescription: 9.2% vs 7.2% for those not prescribed CGM.

No racial or ethnic bias was found in the relationships between CGM use and insulin use, provider experience, engagement with care, and A1c. However, there were differences by age, sex, and spoken language.

For example, the Hispanic group aged 65 years and older was less likely than those younger to be prescribed CGM, but this wasn’t seen in other ethnic groups. In fact, older White people were slightly more likely to have CGM prescribed. Spanish-speaking patients were about 43% less likely to have CGM prescribed than were English-speaking patients.

These findings suggest a dual approach might work best for improving CGM prescribing in primary care. “We can leverage the knowledge that some of these factors are independent of bias and promote clinical and evidence-based guidelines for CGM. Additionally, we should focus on physicians in training,” Dr. Milosavljevic said.

At the same time, “we need to tackle systemic inequity in prescription processes,” with measures such as improving prescription workflows, supporting prior authorization, and using patient hands-on support for older adults and Spanish-speaking individuals, he said.

In a message to this news organization, Tamara K. Oser, MD, wrote, “Disparities in CGM and other diabetes technology are prevalent and multifactorial. In addition to insurance barriers, implicit bias also plays a large role. Shared decision-making should always be used when deciding to prescribe diabetes technologies.”

The PREPARE 4 CGM study is evaluating willingness to pay for CGM, she noted.

“Even patients without insurance might want to purchase one sensor every few months to empower them to learn more about how food and exercise affect their glucose or to help assess the need for [adjusting] diabetes medications. It is an exciting time for people living with diabetes. Primary care, endocrinology, device manufacturers, and insurers should all do their part to assure increased access to these evidence-based technologies.”

Dr. Martens’ employer has received funds on his behalf for research and speaking support from Dexcom, Abbott Diabetes Care, Medtronic, Insulet, Tandem, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk, and for consulting from Sanofi and Eli Lilly and Company. He is employed by the nonprofit HealthPartners Institute dba International Diabetes Center and received no personal income from these activities.

The Osers have received advisory board consulting fees (through the University of Colorado) from Dexcom, Medscape Medical News, Ascensia, and Blue Circle Health and research grants (through the University of Colorado) from National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, and Insulet. They do not own stocks in any device or pharmaceutical company.

Dr. Milosavljevic’s work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science and Einstein-Montefiore Clinical and Translational Science Awards. He had no further disclosures.
 

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

Gary* is a 60-year-old race car driver with a history of insulin resistance, elevated cholesterol, and severe reflux. His wife sent him to me when his snoring became so loud and “violent” that she could no longer sleep in the same bedroom. 

She was desperate to help him lose weight in a sustained fashion. All his previous efforts were short-lived due to his self-described pizza and burger addiction. At 5 ft 9 in and 180 lb, his body mass index (BMI) was approximately 26.5 (normal is 18.5-24.9). 

On exam, his arms and legs were relatively thin, but he had a hard, protuberant belly. Given his body habits, comorbidities, and family history of early heart disease, I was worried that his weight would eventually become life-threatening. Solely on the basis of BMI criteria, however, he is not considered to be at high risk. 

This begs the question, are we relying too much on BMI and ignoring central adiposity (ie, belly fat) and comorbid conditions when identifying at-risk patients?

The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) argues exactly this point in its new guidelines published in July 2024. Titled “A New Framework for the Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Obesity in Adults,” the guidelines assert that obesity should be redefined as a chronic and relapsing adiposity-based disease which may start off as asymptomatic but often becomes life-threatening. 

The guidelines further argue that BMI does not appropriately predict cardiometabolic risk in patients with BMI < 35. Instead, in such patients we should incorporate the use of waist-to-height ratios to reflect the potentially deleterious presence of increased visceral fat. It expands the definition of high-risk patients to include those with BMI > 25 and a waist-to-height ratio > 0.5.

It also suggests that DEXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) or bioimpedance testing be used when BMI results are ambiguous. The European guidelines recommend considering screening more routinely for eating disorders (with psychometric testing) and depression. The guidelines highlight the importance of long-term goals and of physical activity, nutrition, and psychological support in addition to pharmaceutical treatments.

On the basis of these new guidelines, I attempted to start Gary on Wegovy (semaglutide) along with sending him to a health coach, dietitian, and trainer. Unfortunately, despite documenting a waist-to-height ratio of > 0.6 and elevated fat percentage of just over 30% using bioimpedance, my prior authorization and appeal were summarily rejected by his insurance provider. 

In the United States, pharmacotherapy is typically approved for patients with a BMI of 27 or higher with a comorbidity (like high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol levels) or a BMI over 30. This clearly highlights the need for updated criteria for weight loss medication. Thank goodness for compounded semaglutide to fill this void until the medical world catches up with the EASO guidelines. 

Now on compounded semaglutide, Gary has lost 15 lb. His once rounded belly is nearly flat, and he has a normal waist-to-height ratio. While his dietary choices still leave something to be desired, his portion sizes are much smaller. His snoring has improved considerably. His most recent bioimpedance testing showed a reduced fat percentage of just under 25%.

*Patient’s name has been changed 

Caroline Messer, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gary* is a 60-year-old race car driver with a history of insulin resistance, elevated cholesterol, and severe reflux. His wife sent him to me when his snoring became so loud and “violent” that she could no longer sleep in the same bedroom. 

She was desperate to help him lose weight in a sustained fashion. All his previous efforts were short-lived due to his self-described pizza and burger addiction. At 5 ft 9 in and 180 lb, his body mass index (BMI) was approximately 26.5 (normal is 18.5-24.9). 

On exam, his arms and legs were relatively thin, but he had a hard, protuberant belly. Given his body habits, comorbidities, and family history of early heart disease, I was worried that his weight would eventually become life-threatening. Solely on the basis of BMI criteria, however, he is not considered to be at high risk. 

This begs the question, are we relying too much on BMI and ignoring central adiposity (ie, belly fat) and comorbid conditions when identifying at-risk patients?

The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) argues exactly this point in its new guidelines published in July 2024. Titled “A New Framework for the Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Obesity in Adults,” the guidelines assert that obesity should be redefined as a chronic and relapsing adiposity-based disease which may start off as asymptomatic but often becomes life-threatening. 

The guidelines further argue that BMI does not appropriately predict cardiometabolic risk in patients with BMI < 35. Instead, in such patients we should incorporate the use of waist-to-height ratios to reflect the potentially deleterious presence of increased visceral fat. It expands the definition of high-risk patients to include those with BMI > 25 and a waist-to-height ratio > 0.5.

It also suggests that DEXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) or bioimpedance testing be used when BMI results are ambiguous. The European guidelines recommend considering screening more routinely for eating disorders (with psychometric testing) and depression. The guidelines highlight the importance of long-term goals and of physical activity, nutrition, and psychological support in addition to pharmaceutical treatments.

On the basis of these new guidelines, I attempted to start Gary on Wegovy (semaglutide) along with sending him to a health coach, dietitian, and trainer. Unfortunately, despite documenting a waist-to-height ratio of > 0.6 and elevated fat percentage of just over 30% using bioimpedance, my prior authorization and appeal were summarily rejected by his insurance provider. 

In the United States, pharmacotherapy is typically approved for patients with a BMI of 27 or higher with a comorbidity (like high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol levels) or a BMI over 30. This clearly highlights the need for updated criteria for weight loss medication. Thank goodness for compounded semaglutide to fill this void until the medical world catches up with the EASO guidelines. 

Now on compounded semaglutide, Gary has lost 15 lb. His once rounded belly is nearly flat, and he has a normal waist-to-height ratio. While his dietary choices still leave something to be desired, his portion sizes are much smaller. His snoring has improved considerably. His most recent bioimpedance testing showed a reduced fat percentage of just under 25%.

*Patient’s name has been changed 

Caroline Messer, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gary* is a 60-year-old race car driver with a history of insulin resistance, elevated cholesterol, and severe reflux. His wife sent him to me when his snoring became so loud and “violent” that she could no longer sleep in the same bedroom. 

She was desperate to help him lose weight in a sustained fashion. All his previous efforts were short-lived due to his self-described pizza and burger addiction. At 5 ft 9 in and 180 lb, his body mass index (BMI) was approximately 26.5 (normal is 18.5-24.9). 

On exam, his arms and legs were relatively thin, but he had a hard, protuberant belly. Given his body habits, comorbidities, and family history of early heart disease, I was worried that his weight would eventually become life-threatening. Solely on the basis of BMI criteria, however, he is not considered to be at high risk. 

This begs the question, are we relying too much on BMI and ignoring central adiposity (ie, belly fat) and comorbid conditions when identifying at-risk patients?

The European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) argues exactly this point in its new guidelines published in July 2024. Titled “A New Framework for the Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Obesity in Adults,” the guidelines assert that obesity should be redefined as a chronic and relapsing adiposity-based disease which may start off as asymptomatic but often becomes life-threatening. 

The guidelines further argue that BMI does not appropriately predict cardiometabolic risk in patients with BMI < 35. Instead, in such patients we should incorporate the use of waist-to-height ratios to reflect the potentially deleterious presence of increased visceral fat. It expands the definition of high-risk patients to include those with BMI > 25 and a waist-to-height ratio > 0.5.

It also suggests that DEXA (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) or bioimpedance testing be used when BMI results are ambiguous. The European guidelines recommend considering screening more routinely for eating disorders (with psychometric testing) and depression. The guidelines highlight the importance of long-term goals and of physical activity, nutrition, and psychological support in addition to pharmaceutical treatments.

On the basis of these new guidelines, I attempted to start Gary on Wegovy (semaglutide) along with sending him to a health coach, dietitian, and trainer. Unfortunately, despite documenting a waist-to-height ratio of > 0.6 and elevated fat percentage of just over 30% using bioimpedance, my prior authorization and appeal were summarily rejected by his insurance provider. 

In the United States, pharmacotherapy is typically approved for patients with a BMI of 27 or higher with a comorbidity (like high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol levels) or a BMI over 30. This clearly highlights the need for updated criteria for weight loss medication. Thank goodness for compounded semaglutide to fill this void until the medical world catches up with the EASO guidelines. 

Now on compounded semaglutide, Gary has lost 15 lb. His once rounded belly is nearly flat, and he has a normal waist-to-height ratio. While his dietary choices still leave something to be desired, his portion sizes are much smaller. His snoring has improved considerably. His most recent bioimpedance testing showed a reduced fat percentage of just under 25%.

*Patient’s name has been changed 

Caroline Messer, MD, is Clinical Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Associate Professor, Hofstra School of Medicine, both in New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), eating more ultraprocessed food (UPF) increased the overall risk for microvascular complications and for diabetic kidney disease in particular. The risk was partly mediated by biomarkers related to body weight, lipid metabolism, and inflammation.

METHODOLOGY:

• A higher intake of UPF increases the risk for T2D and other metabolic morbidities; but whether this leads to an increased risk for diabetic microvascular complications remains largely unexplored.
• Researchers evaluated the association between the intake of UPF and the risk for diabetic microvascular complications in a prospective cohort of 5685 participants with T2D (mean age, 59.7 years; 63.8% men) from the UK Biobank.
• Dietary information of participants was collected with a web-based 24-hour dietary recall tool that recorded the frequency of consumption of 206 foods and 32 beverages.
• Researchers found five patterns that accounted for one third of UPF intake variation by estimated weight (not calories): Bread and spreads; cereal with liquids; high dairy and low cured meat; sugary beverages and snacks; and mixed beverages and savory snacks.
• The outcomes included the risk for overall microvascular complications; for diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, and diabetic kidney disease; and for biomarkers related to microvascular complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up duration of 12.7 years, 1243 composite microvascular complications were reported, including 599 diabetic retinopathy, 237 diabetic neuropathy, and 662 diabetic kidney disease events.
• Each 10% increase in the proportion of UPF consumption increased the risk for composite microvascular complications by 8% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13) and diabetic kidney disease by 13% (HR 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). No significant UPF intake association was found with diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy.
• In the biomarker mediation analysis, body mass index, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein collectively explained 22% (P < .001) and 15.8% (P < .001) of the associations of UPF consumption with composite microvascular complications and diabetic kidney disease, respectively.
• The food pattern rich in sugary beverages and snacks increased the risk for diabetic kidney disease, whereas the pattern rich in mixed beverages and savory snacks increased the risk for composite microvascular complications and diabetic retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“In view of microvascular complications, our findings further support adhering to the recommendations outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s 2022 guidelines, which advocate for the preference of whole foods over highly processed ones,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yue Li, MBBS, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

The dietary recall used in the UK Biobank was not specifically designed to collect dietary data according to the Nova food categories used in the study, which may have led to misclassifications. Data on usual dietary intake may not have been captured accurately, as all participants did not provide multiple dietary recalls. Individuals with T2D who completed dietary assessments were more likely to have a higher socioeconomic status and healthier lifestyle than those not filling the assessment, which could have resulted in an underrepresentation of high UPF consumers.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and other government sources. None of the authors declared any competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), eating more ultraprocessed food (UPF) increased the overall risk for microvascular complications and for diabetic kidney disease in particular. The risk was partly mediated by biomarkers related to body weight, lipid metabolism, and inflammation.

METHODOLOGY:

• A higher intake of UPF increases the risk for T2D and other metabolic morbidities; but whether this leads to an increased risk for diabetic microvascular complications remains largely unexplored.
• Researchers evaluated the association between the intake of UPF and the risk for diabetic microvascular complications in a prospective cohort of 5685 participants with T2D (mean age, 59.7 years; 63.8% men) from the UK Biobank.
• Dietary information of participants was collected with a web-based 24-hour dietary recall tool that recorded the frequency of consumption of 206 foods and 32 beverages.
• Researchers found five patterns that accounted for one third of UPF intake variation by estimated weight (not calories): Bread and spreads; cereal with liquids; high dairy and low cured meat; sugary beverages and snacks; and mixed beverages and savory snacks.
• The outcomes included the risk for overall microvascular complications; for diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, and diabetic kidney disease; and for biomarkers related to microvascular complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up duration of 12.7 years, 1243 composite microvascular complications were reported, including 599 diabetic retinopathy, 237 diabetic neuropathy, and 662 diabetic kidney disease events.
• Each 10% increase in the proportion of UPF consumption increased the risk for composite microvascular complications by 8% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13) and diabetic kidney disease by 13% (HR 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). No significant UPF intake association was found with diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy.
• In the biomarker mediation analysis, body mass index, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein collectively explained 22% (P < .001) and 15.8% (P < .001) of the associations of UPF consumption with composite microvascular complications and diabetic kidney disease, respectively.
• The food pattern rich in sugary beverages and snacks increased the risk for diabetic kidney disease, whereas the pattern rich in mixed beverages and savory snacks increased the risk for composite microvascular complications and diabetic retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“In view of microvascular complications, our findings further support adhering to the recommendations outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s 2022 guidelines, which advocate for the preference of whole foods over highly processed ones,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yue Li, MBBS, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

The dietary recall used in the UK Biobank was not specifically designed to collect dietary data according to the Nova food categories used in the study, which may have led to misclassifications. Data on usual dietary intake may not have been captured accurately, as all participants did not provide multiple dietary recalls. Individuals with T2D who completed dietary assessments were more likely to have a higher socioeconomic status and healthier lifestyle than those not filling the assessment, which could have resulted in an underrepresentation of high UPF consumers.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and other government sources. None of the authors declared any competing interests.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), eating more ultraprocessed food (UPF) increased the overall risk for microvascular complications and for diabetic kidney disease in particular. The risk was partly mediated by biomarkers related to body weight, lipid metabolism, and inflammation.

METHODOLOGY:

• A higher intake of UPF increases the risk for T2D and other metabolic morbidities; but whether this leads to an increased risk for diabetic microvascular complications remains largely unexplored.
• Researchers evaluated the association between the intake of UPF and the risk for diabetic microvascular complications in a prospective cohort of 5685 participants with T2D (mean age, 59.7 years; 63.8% men) from the UK Biobank.
• Dietary information of participants was collected with a web-based 24-hour dietary recall tool that recorded the frequency of consumption of 206 foods and 32 beverages.
• Researchers found five patterns that accounted for one third of UPF intake variation by estimated weight (not calories): Bread and spreads; cereal with liquids; high dairy and low cured meat; sugary beverages and snacks; and mixed beverages and savory snacks.
• The outcomes included the risk for overall microvascular complications; for diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, and diabetic kidney disease; and for biomarkers related to microvascular complications.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up duration of 12.7 years, 1243 composite microvascular complications were reported, including 599 diabetic retinopathy, 237 diabetic neuropathy, and 662 diabetic kidney disease events.
• Each 10% increase in the proportion of UPF consumption increased the risk for composite microvascular complications by 8% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13) and diabetic kidney disease by 13% (HR 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20). No significant UPF intake association was found with diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy.
• In the biomarker mediation analysis, body mass index, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein collectively explained 22% (P < .001) and 15.8% (P < .001) of the associations of UPF consumption with composite microvascular complications and diabetic kidney disease, respectively.
• The food pattern rich in sugary beverages and snacks increased the risk for diabetic kidney disease, whereas the pattern rich in mixed beverages and savory snacks increased the risk for composite microvascular complications and diabetic retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“In view of microvascular complications, our findings further support adhering to the recommendations outlined in the American Diabetes Association’s 2022 guidelines, which advocate for the preference of whole foods over highly processed ones,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yue Li, MBBS, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

The dietary recall used in the UK Biobank was not specifically designed to collect dietary data according to the Nova food categories used in the study, which may have led to misclassifications. Data on usual dietary intake may not have been captured accurately, as all participants did not provide multiple dietary recalls. Individuals with T2D who completed dietary assessments were more likely to have a higher socioeconomic status and healthier lifestyle than those not filling the assessment, which could have resulted in an underrepresentation of high UPF consumers.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and other government sources. None of the authors declared any competing interests.
 

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.

More than 100 conservative organizations are said to be participating. More than 400 conservative scholars and experts have collaborated in authorship of the mandate’s 40 chapters. Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government. 

The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts. 
 

Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025

• “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
• “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
• “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
• “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
• “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
• “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
• “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
• “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
• “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
• “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
• “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
• “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
• “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
• “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
• “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
• “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
• “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
• “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
• “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
• “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
• “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
• “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
• “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
• “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
• “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
• “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
• “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
• “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”

Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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.

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Chemotherapy has fallen out of favor for treating cancer toward the end of life. The toxicity is too high, and the benefit, if any, is often too low.

Immunotherapy, however, has been taking its place. Checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly being initiated to treat metastatic cancer in patients approaching the end of life and have become the leading driver of end-of-life cancer spending.

This means “there are patients who are getting immunotherapy who shouldn’t,” said Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, surgical oncologist Sajid Khan, MD, senior investigator on a recent study that highlighted the growing use of these agents in patients’ last month of life.

What’s driving this trend, and how can oncologists avoid overtreatment with immunotherapy at the end of life?
 

The N-of-1 Patient

With immunotherapy at the end of life, “each of us has had our N-of-1” where a patient bounces back with a remarkable and durable response, said Don Dizon, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

He recalled a patient with sarcoma who did not respond to chemotherapy. But after Dr. Dizon started her on immunotherapy, everything turned around. She has now been in remission for 8 years and counting.

The possibility of an unexpected or remarkable responder is seductive. And the improved safety of immunotherapy over chemotherapy adds to the allure.

Meanwhile, patients are often desperate. It’s rare for someone to be ready to stop treatment, Dr. Dizon said. Everybody “hopes that they’re going to be the exceptional responder.”

At the end of the day, the question often becomes: “Why not try immunotherapy? What’s there to lose?”

This thinking may be prompting broader use of immunotherapy in late-stage disease, even in instances with no Food and Drug Administration indication and virtually no supportive data, such as for metastatic ovarian cancer, Dr. Dizon said.
 

Back to Earth

The problem with the hopeful approach is that end-of-life turnarounds with immunotherapy are rare, and there’s no way at the moment to predict who will have one, said Laura Petrillo, MD, a palliative care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Even though immunotherapy generally comes with fewer adverse events than chemotherapy, catastrophic side effects are still possible.

Dr. Petrillo recalled a 95-year-old woman with metastatic cancer who was largely asymptomatic.

She had a qualifying mutation for a checkpoint inhibitor, so her oncologist started her on one. The patient never bounced back from the severe colitis the agent caused, and she died of complications in the hospital.

Although such reactions with immunotherapy are uncommon, less serious problems caused by the agents can still have a major impact on a person’s quality of life. Low-grade diarrhea, for instance, may not sound too bad, but in a patient’s daily life, it can translate to six or more episodes a day.

Even with no side effects, prescribing immunotherapy can mean that patients with limited time left spend a good portion of it at an infusion clinic instead of at home. These patients are also less likely to be referred to hospice and more likely to be admitted to and die in the hospital.

And with treatments that can cost $20,000 per dose, financial toxicity becomes a big concern.

In short, some of the reasons why chemotherapy is not recommended at the end of life also apply to immunotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said.
 

Prescribing Decisions

Recent research highlights the growing use of immunotherapy at the end of life.

Dr. Khan’s retrospective study found, for instance, that the percentage of patients starting immunotherapy in the last 30 days of life increased by about fourfold to fivefold over the study period for the three cancers analyzed — stage IV melanoma, lung, and kidney cancers.

Among the population that died within 30 days, the percentage receiving immunotherapy increased over the study periods — 0.8%-4.3% for melanoma, 0.9%-3.2% for NSCLC, and 0.5%-2.6% for kidney cell carcinoma — prompting the conclusion that immunotherapy prescriptions in the last month of life are on the rise.

Prescribing immunotherapy in patients who ultimately died within 1 month occurred more frequently at low-volume, nonacademic centers than at academic or high-volume centers, and outcomes varied by practice setting.

Patients had better survival outcomes overall when receiving immunotherapy at academic or high-volume centers — a finding Dr. Khan said is worth investigating further. Possible explanations include better management of severe immune-related side effects at larger centers and more caution when prescribing immunotherapy to “borderline” candidates, such as those with several comorbidities.

Importantly, given the retrospective design, Dr. Khan and colleagues already knew which patients prescribed immunotherapy died within 30 days of initiating treatment.

More specifically, 5192 of 71,204 patients who received immunotherapy (7.3%) died within a month of initiating therapy, while 66,012 (92.7%) lived beyond that point.

The study, however, did not assess how the remaining 92.7% who lived beyond 30 days fared on immunotherapy and the differences between those who lived less than 30 days and those who survived longer.

Knowing the outcome of patients at the outset of the analysis still leaves open the question of when immunotherapy can extend life and when it can’t for the patient in front of you.

To avoid overtreating at the end of life, it’s important to have “the same standard that you have for giving chemotherapy. You have to treat it with the same respect,” said Moshe Chasky, MD, a community medical oncologist with Alliance Cancer Specialists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “You can’t just be throwing” immunotherapy around “at the end of life.”

While there are no clear predictors of risk and benefit, there are some factors to help guide decisions.

As with chemotherapy, Dr. Petrillo said performance status is key. Dr. Petrillo and colleagues found that median overall survival with immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non–small cell lung cancer was 14.3 months in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1 but only 4.5 months with scores of ≥ 2.

Dr. Khan also found that immunotherapy survival is, unsurprisingly, worse in patients with high metastatic burdens and more comorbidities.

“You should still consider immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma, non–small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma,” Dr. Khan said. The message here is to “think twice before using” it, especially in comorbid patients with widespread metastases.

“Just because something can be done doesn’t always mean it should be done,” he said.

At Yale, when Dr. Khan works, immunotherapy decisions are considered by a multidisciplinary tumor board. At Mass General, immunotherapy has generally moved to the frontline setting, and the hospital no longer prescribes checkpoint inhibitors to hospitalized patients because the cost is too high relative to the potential benefit, Dr. Petrillo explained.

Still, with all the uncertainties about risk and benefit, counseling patients is a challenge. Dr. Dizon called it “the epitome of shared decision-making.”

Dr. Petrillo noted that it’s critical not to counsel patients based solely on the anecdotal patients who do surprisingly well.

“It’s hard to mention that and not have that be what somebody anchors on,” she said. But that speaks to “how desperate people can feel, how hopeful they can be.”

Dr. Khan, Dr. Petrillo, and Dr. Chasky all reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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