MDedge Endocrinology

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.

For physicians with student debt, half carry more than $200,000 and 26% carry more than $300,000, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.

I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.

As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.

This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.

It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.

It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.

I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.

Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems

My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.

Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.

I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.

Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.

Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals

To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.

How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)

This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.

Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.

Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions

I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.

It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.

Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.

If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.

There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.

Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders

If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.

Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.

Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.

Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind

I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.

A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?

Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.

Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?

Looking Ahead

Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.

I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.

My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.

I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.

I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.

Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.

You really have to stay on top of those folks.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.

For physicians with student debt, half carry more than $200,000 and 26% carry more than $300,000, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.

I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.

As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.

This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.

It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.

It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.

I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.

Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems

My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.

Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.

I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.

Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.

Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals

To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.

How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)

This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.

Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.

Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions

I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.

It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.

Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.

If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.

There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.

Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders

If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.

Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.

Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.

Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind

I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.

A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?

Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.

Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?

Looking Ahead

Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.

I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.

My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.

I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.

I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.

Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.

You really have to stay on top of those folks.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not always great to be tops among your peers.

For physicians with student debt, half carry more than $200,000 and 26% carry more than $300,000, according to Medscape Medical News’ 2023 Residents Salary and Debt Report.

I’m smack in that upper percentile. I amassed nearly a half million dollars in student debt and currently stand at roughly $400,000. Yay me.

As a naive twentysomething making a major life decision, I never thought my loans would amount to this inconceivable figure, the proverbial “mortgage without a roof” you hear student debt experts talk about.

This isn’t a story about how the student loan industry needs to be reformed or how education has become increasingly expensive or regrets about going to medical school.

It’s also not a story about how you should be handling basics like consolidating and refinancing and paying extra toward your principal.

It’s about my experience as a physician 13 years after signing that first promissory note. In short: I completely miscalculated the impact loans would have on my life.

I bought money to go to school. I can’t undo that. But over the past decade, I have learned a lot, particularly how those with their own mountain of debt — or who will inevitably wind up with one — can manage things better than I have.

Mistake #1: Loan Forgiveness Is More Complicated Than it Seems

My parents and I were aware of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program which began in 2007 shortly before I started exploring medical school options. I wanted to help people, so working in the nonprofit sector sounded like a no-brainer. Making 120 payments while practicing at a qualifying institution didn’t sound hard.

Newsflash: Not all healthcare organizations are 501(c)3 programs that qualify as nonprofit for the PSLF program. You can’t just snap your fingers and land at one. I graduated from fellowship just as the COVID-19 pandemic began, which meant I was launching my medical career in the midst of hiring freezes and an overnight disappearance of job opportunities.

I had to take a 2-year hiatus from the nonprofit sector and found a part-time position with a local private practice group. It still stings. Had I been working for a qualified employer, I could have benefited from the student loan payment pause and been closer to applying for loan forgiveness.

Avoid it: Be brutally honest with yourself about what kind of medicine you want to practice — especially within the opportunities you have on hand. Private practice is very different from working for the nonprofit sector. I didn›t know that. When weighing career choices, immediately ask, “How will this impact how I pay my loans?” You may not like the answer, but you›ll always know where you stand financially.

Mistake #2: I Forgot to Factor in Life Goals

To be fair, some things were out of my control: Not getting into a state school with cheaper tuition rates, graduating at the start of a once-in-a-lifetime global pandemic. I wasn’t prepared for a changing job landscape. But there were also “expected” life events like getting married, developing a geographical preference, and having a child. I didn’t consider those either.

How about the “expected” goal of buying a home? For years I didn’t feel financially comfortable enough to take on a mortgage. For so long, my attitude has been don’t take on any more debt. (A special shout-out to my 6.8% interest rate which has contributed over a third of my total loan amount.)

This even affected how my husband and I would talk about what a future home might look like. There’s always a giant unwelcome guest casting a shadow over my thoughts.

Avoid it: Don’t compartmentalize your personal and professional lives. Your student loans will hang over both, and you need to be honest with yourself about what “upward mobility” really means to you while in debt. There’s a reason people say “live like a resident” until your loans are paid off. My husband and I finally worked our numbers to where we bought our first home this past year — a moment years in the making. I still drive around in my beloved Honda CR-V like it’s a Mercedes G-Wagon.

Mistake #3: I Didn’t Ask Questions

I regret not talking to a practicing physician about their experience with student loans. I didn’t know any. There weren’t any physicians in my extended family or my community network. I was a first-generation Pakistani American kid trying to figure it out.

It’s difficult because even today, many physicians aren’t comfortable discussing their financial circumstances. The lack of financial transparency and even financial literacy is astounding among young medical professionals. We live in a medical culture where no one talks about the money. I was too diffident and nervous to even try.

Avoid it: Don’t be afraid to have uncomfortable conversations about money. Don’t allow yourself to make even one passive decision. It’s your life.

If you can’t find someone in medicine to talk to about their financial journey, there are plenty of credible resources. Medscape Medical News has a Physician Business Academy with hot topics like personal finance. The White Coat Investor is literally bookmarked on all my electronic devices. KevinMD.com has a ton of resources and articles answering common financial questions about retirement, savings, and house buying. And Travis Hornsby with www.studentloanplanner.com has wonderful advice on all kinds of different loans.

There are no stupid questions. Just ask. You might be surprised by what people are willing to share.

Mistake #4: Playing it Casual With My Lenders

If $400,000 in debt doesn’t sound bad enough, imagine lots more. It turns out my loan carrier had me at a much higher loan balance because they’d inadvertently duplicated one of my loans in the total. I didn’t know that until I transferred my loans to another handler and it came to light.

Imagine my relief at having a lower total. Imagine my anger at myself for not checking sooner.

Avoid it: Do a thorough self-audit on all your loans more than once a year. Pretend they’re a patient with odd symptoms you can’t pin down and you have the luxury of doing every diagnostic test available. It’s not fun studying your own debt, but it’s the only way to really know how much you have.

Mistake #5: Not Leaving Room to Change My Mind

I underestimated how I would evolve and how my goals would change after having the letters “MD” after my name. I never dreamed that a nonprofit salary might not be enough.

A lot of us assume that the bedside is where we will find professional satisfaction. But you might be surprised. In a climate where we’re constantly being pushed to do more in a broken healthcare system, a landscape where misinformation and technology are forcing medicine to change, there might be little joy in working clinically full time. Then what do you do?

Because I elected to go the PSLF route, I’m tied to this decision. And while it still makes the most economic sense for me personally, it now limits my professional exploration and freedom.

Avoid it: Consider how much time you really want to spend in clinical medicine. Be mindful that you have to work at least 0.8 full time equivalent to qualify for the PSLF program. It’s very hard to predict the future, let alone your future, but just know you›ll have moments where you ask, “Do I really want to stay on this career track?” Will you be able to pivot? Can you live with it if the answer is no?

Looking Ahead

Let me be clear about one thing. Despite all the negativity I feel toward my student loans — guilt about the burden I brought to my marriage and my adult life, disappointment about the cost of becoming a successful physician, and frustration that this has turned out to be the most influential factor shaping my professional and personal choices — the one thing I don’t feel is shame.

I worked hard to get to this point in my life. I am proud of being a physician.

My student loan burden will follow me to the grave. But progress is also possible. I have friends that have paid their loans down by hustling, working hard, and dropping every penny toward them.

I also have friends that have had their loans forgiven. There are options. Everyone’s experience looks a little different. But don’t be naive: Student loans will color every financial decision you make.

I’m finding solace now in recently moving and finding work at a nonprofit institution. I’m back at it; 77 payments made, and 43 to go.

Well, technically I’ve made 93 payments. I’m still waiting for my loan servicer to get around to updating my account.

You really have to stay on top of those folks.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, also known as pseudogout, have an 80% higher risk for fracture than individuals who do not have the disease, according to a new analysis.

This trend was driven by wrist fractures, where there was a more than threefold increased risk.

Previous studies identified an association between CPPD and low bone mineral density, and there is growing evidence suggesting that the dysregulation of osteoprotegerin — a molecule that is important in the regulation of osteoclasts — may be associated with early-onset CPPD, noted Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, the lead author of the study and head of crystal-induced arthritic diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

However, CPPD’s association with fracture risk has yet to be explored.

In the study, Dr. Tedeschi and colleagues used Mass General Brigham electronic health record (EHR) data from 1991 to 2023 to identify 1148 individuals with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis. The index date was defined as the first documentation of pseudogout or synovial fluid CPP crystals. These patients were matched to 3730 comparators based on healthcare encounters within 30 days of the index date of a patient with CPPD. Patients were also matched based on the year of their first EHR encounter. Patients with a fracture documented prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome was the first fracture of the humerus, knee, wrist, hip, or pelvis, detected via published algorithms using diagnostic and procedural codes.

The research was published on January 14 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Although participants were not matched on age or sex, the average age was 73, and most participants were female. In total, 83.1% of participants in the CPPD group and 80.0% of those in the control group were White.

After adjustment for confounding factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and glucocorticoid use, CPPD was associated with an 80% higher risk for any fracture (hazard risk [HR], 1.8). Fracture risk was highest for the wrist (HR, 3.6).

Patients with CPPD had a 40% higher risk to experience a humerus or pelvis fracture and a 30% higher risk for hip fractures, but the results were not statistically significant.

The results were similar for sensitivity analyses that excluded patients who were prescribed glucocorticoids, treatment for osteoporosis, or had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Asked to comment, John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that these associations were “convincing and strong. I thought it was a very good study and important work. CPPD is common and osteoporosis is common, so better understanding the connection is important.”

It’s still not clear why the risk for wrist fractures was highest, but Dr. Tedeschi had two hypotheses. The researchers were unable to assess for falls in this dataset, but it’s possible that patients with CPPD experiencing joint pain could fall and try to brace themselves with an outstretched arm, leading to a wrist fracture.

CPPD also commonly affects the wrist, “so it’s possible that if CPPD is affecting the wrist and if there is an association between CPPD and low bone density, maybe there’s particularly low bone density at the wrist,” she said.

Dr. FitzGerald agreed that both hypotheses were plausible, but “with the retrospective study, there could be a lot of things that are unobserved or unexplained,” he added.

Dr. Tedeschi is interested in exploring what could be causing the association with an increased fracture risk in future research.

“I hope this draws attention to the fact that people with CPPD can have related medical problems that are outside of their joints,” added Dr. Tedeschi. “Thinking about routine screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis could be a good first step in patients with CPPD.”

The study was funded by grants from the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, also known as pseudogout, have an 80% higher risk for fracture than individuals who do not have the disease, according to a new analysis.

This trend was driven by wrist fractures, where there was a more than threefold increased risk.

Previous studies identified an association between CPPD and low bone mineral density, and there is growing evidence suggesting that the dysregulation of osteoprotegerin — a molecule that is important in the regulation of osteoclasts — may be associated with early-onset CPPD, noted Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, the lead author of the study and head of crystal-induced arthritic diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

However, CPPD’s association with fracture risk has yet to be explored.

In the study, Dr. Tedeschi and colleagues used Mass General Brigham electronic health record (EHR) data from 1991 to 2023 to identify 1148 individuals with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis. The index date was defined as the first documentation of pseudogout or synovial fluid CPP crystals. These patients were matched to 3730 comparators based on healthcare encounters within 30 days of the index date of a patient with CPPD. Patients were also matched based on the year of their first EHR encounter. Patients with a fracture documented prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome was the first fracture of the humerus, knee, wrist, hip, or pelvis, detected via published algorithms using diagnostic and procedural codes.

The research was published on January 14 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Although participants were not matched on age or sex, the average age was 73, and most participants were female. In total, 83.1% of participants in the CPPD group and 80.0% of those in the control group were White.

After adjustment for confounding factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and glucocorticoid use, CPPD was associated with an 80% higher risk for any fracture (hazard risk [HR], 1.8). Fracture risk was highest for the wrist (HR, 3.6).

Patients with CPPD had a 40% higher risk to experience a humerus or pelvis fracture and a 30% higher risk for hip fractures, but the results were not statistically significant.

The results were similar for sensitivity analyses that excluded patients who were prescribed glucocorticoids, treatment for osteoporosis, or had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Asked to comment, John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that these associations were “convincing and strong. I thought it was a very good study and important work. CPPD is common and osteoporosis is common, so better understanding the connection is important.”

It’s still not clear why the risk for wrist fractures was highest, but Dr. Tedeschi had two hypotheses. The researchers were unable to assess for falls in this dataset, but it’s possible that patients with CPPD experiencing joint pain could fall and try to brace themselves with an outstretched arm, leading to a wrist fracture.

CPPD also commonly affects the wrist, “so it’s possible that if CPPD is affecting the wrist and if there is an association between CPPD and low bone density, maybe there’s particularly low bone density at the wrist,” she said.

Dr. FitzGerald agreed that both hypotheses were plausible, but “with the retrospective study, there could be a lot of things that are unobserved or unexplained,” he added.

Dr. Tedeschi is interested in exploring what could be causing the association with an increased fracture risk in future research.

“I hope this draws attention to the fact that people with CPPD can have related medical problems that are outside of their joints,” added Dr. Tedeschi. “Thinking about routine screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis could be a good first step in patients with CPPD.”

The study was funded by grants from the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease, also known as pseudogout, have an 80% higher risk for fracture than individuals who do not have the disease, according to a new analysis.

This trend was driven by wrist fractures, where there was a more than threefold increased risk.

Previous studies identified an association between CPPD and low bone mineral density, and there is growing evidence suggesting that the dysregulation of osteoprotegerin — a molecule that is important in the regulation of osteoclasts — may be associated with early-onset CPPD, noted Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, the lead author of the study and head of crystal-induced arthritic diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

However, CPPD’s association with fracture risk has yet to be explored.

In the study, Dr. Tedeschi and colleagues used Mass General Brigham electronic health record (EHR) data from 1991 to 2023 to identify 1148 individuals with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis. The index date was defined as the first documentation of pseudogout or synovial fluid CPP crystals. These patients were matched to 3730 comparators based on healthcare encounters within 30 days of the index date of a patient with CPPD. Patients were also matched based on the year of their first EHR encounter. Patients with a fracture documented prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome was the first fracture of the humerus, knee, wrist, hip, or pelvis, detected via published algorithms using diagnostic and procedural codes.

The research was published on January 14 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Although participants were not matched on age or sex, the average age was 73, and most participants were female. In total, 83.1% of participants in the CPPD group and 80.0% of those in the control group were White.

After adjustment for confounding factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and glucocorticoid use, CPPD was associated with an 80% higher risk for any fracture (hazard risk [HR], 1.8). Fracture risk was highest for the wrist (HR, 3.6).

Patients with CPPD had a 40% higher risk to experience a humerus or pelvis fracture and a 30% higher risk for hip fractures, but the results were not statistically significant.

The results were similar for sensitivity analyses that excluded patients who were prescribed glucocorticoids, treatment for osteoporosis, or had a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Asked to comment, John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that these associations were “convincing and strong. I thought it was a very good study and important work. CPPD is common and osteoporosis is common, so better understanding the connection is important.”

It’s still not clear why the risk for wrist fractures was highest, but Dr. Tedeschi had two hypotheses. The researchers were unable to assess for falls in this dataset, but it’s possible that patients with CPPD experiencing joint pain could fall and try to brace themselves with an outstretched arm, leading to a wrist fracture.

CPPD also commonly affects the wrist, “so it’s possible that if CPPD is affecting the wrist and if there is an association between CPPD and low bone density, maybe there’s particularly low bone density at the wrist,” she said.

Dr. FitzGerald agreed that both hypotheses were plausible, but “with the retrospective study, there could be a lot of things that are unobserved or unexplained,” he added.

Dr. Tedeschi is interested in exploring what could be causing the association with an increased fracture risk in future research.

“I hope this draws attention to the fact that people with CPPD can have related medical problems that are outside of their joints,” added Dr. Tedeschi. “Thinking about routine screening for osteopenia and osteoporosis could be a good first step in patients with CPPD.”

The study was funded by grants from the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.