The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly 9 out of every 100 U.S. children are now diagnosed with a developmental disability, according to updated figures from the CDC. 

Developmental disabilities include autism, intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome, and a range of other diagnoses related to missing developmental milestones in how a child plays, learns, or speaks.

The newly reported increase amounts to just over 1 percentage point from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, the rate of developmental disability diagnoses was about 7 in 100 children. The latest figures are from 2021 data, published this week after the CDC finished analyzing responses to the National Health Survey.

Among children ages 3-17 years old in 2021, the survey showed that:

• 1.7% had an intellectual disability.
• 3.1% had autism spectrum disorder.
• 6.1% had a diagnosis of “other developmental delay.”

No significant change was seen from 2019 to 2021 in how common it was for survey respondents to report children having autism or an intellectual disability. The overall increase was driven by a jump in reports from parents that a doctor or health professional told them their child had “any other developmental delay,” excluding autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability.

“A lot of times developmental delays might be temporary diagnoses that evolve into something like autism, potentially, or intellectual disability. But also a lot of times children do age out of those,” lead report author and CDC statistician Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, told CBS News.

The CDC offers an app called Milestone Tracker to help parents watch for signs of developmental delays, in addition to operating a public health education program called “Learn the Signs. Act Early.”

The new report showed that boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to have any developmental delay, a pattern that was magnified when looking specifically at autism diagnoses. Boys were more than three times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The rate of autism among boys was 4.7%, compared with 1.5% among girls.

While these latest survey results showed consistent rates of autism from 2019 to 2021, a different CDC report earlier this year showed an alarming jump in the rate of autism spectrum disorder among 8-year-olds. That report, which compared data from 2008 to 2020, showed the rate of autism among 8-year-olds rose during those 12 years from 1 in 88 kids to 1 in 36 kids.

The two analyses also differed in their findings regarding prevalence of autism when looking at children by race and ethnicity. The report from earlier this year showed that Black and Hispanic children were more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with White children. This latest report did not find any differences in the prevalence of autism based on a child’s race or ethnicity.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Nearly 9 out of every 100 U.S. children are now diagnosed with a developmental disability, according to updated figures from the CDC. 

Developmental disabilities include autism, intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome, and a range of other diagnoses related to missing developmental milestones in how a child plays, learns, or speaks.

The newly reported increase amounts to just over 1 percentage point from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, the rate of developmental disability diagnoses was about 7 in 100 children. The latest figures are from 2021 data, published this week after the CDC finished analyzing responses to the National Health Survey.

Among children ages 3-17 years old in 2021, the survey showed that:

• 1.7% had an intellectual disability.
• 3.1% had autism spectrum disorder.
• 6.1% had a diagnosis of “other developmental delay.”

No significant change was seen from 2019 to 2021 in how common it was for survey respondents to report children having autism or an intellectual disability. The overall increase was driven by a jump in reports from parents that a doctor or health professional told them their child had “any other developmental delay,” excluding autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability.

“A lot of times developmental delays might be temporary diagnoses that evolve into something like autism, potentially, or intellectual disability. But also a lot of times children do age out of those,” lead report author and CDC statistician Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, told CBS News.

The CDC offers an app called Milestone Tracker to help parents watch for signs of developmental delays, in addition to operating a public health education program called “Learn the Signs. Act Early.”

The new report showed that boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to have any developmental delay, a pattern that was magnified when looking specifically at autism diagnoses. Boys were more than three times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The rate of autism among boys was 4.7%, compared with 1.5% among girls.

While these latest survey results showed consistent rates of autism from 2019 to 2021, a different CDC report earlier this year showed an alarming jump in the rate of autism spectrum disorder among 8-year-olds. That report, which compared data from 2008 to 2020, showed the rate of autism among 8-year-olds rose during those 12 years from 1 in 88 kids to 1 in 36 kids.

The two analyses also differed in their findings regarding prevalence of autism when looking at children by race and ethnicity. The report from earlier this year showed that Black and Hispanic children were more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with White children. This latest report did not find any differences in the prevalence of autism based on a child’s race or ethnicity.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Nearly 9 out of every 100 U.S. children are now diagnosed with a developmental disability, according to updated figures from the CDC. 

Developmental disabilities include autism, intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome, and a range of other diagnoses related to missing developmental milestones in how a child plays, learns, or speaks.

The newly reported increase amounts to just over 1 percentage point from 2019 to 2021. In 2019, the rate of developmental disability diagnoses was about 7 in 100 children. The latest figures are from 2021 data, published this week after the CDC finished analyzing responses to the National Health Survey.

Among children ages 3-17 years old in 2021, the survey showed that:

• 1.7% had an intellectual disability.
• 3.1% had autism spectrum disorder.
• 6.1% had a diagnosis of “other developmental delay.”

No significant change was seen from 2019 to 2021 in how common it was for survey respondents to report children having autism or an intellectual disability. The overall increase was driven by a jump in reports from parents that a doctor or health professional told them their child had “any other developmental delay,” excluding autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability.

“A lot of times developmental delays might be temporary diagnoses that evolve into something like autism, potentially, or intellectual disability. But also a lot of times children do age out of those,” lead report author and CDC statistician Benjamin Zablotsky, PhD, told CBS News.

The CDC offers an app called Milestone Tracker to help parents watch for signs of developmental delays, in addition to operating a public health education program called “Learn the Signs. Act Early.”

The new report showed that boys were nearly twice as likely as girls to have any developmental delay, a pattern that was magnified when looking specifically at autism diagnoses. Boys were more than three times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The rate of autism among boys was 4.7%, compared with 1.5% among girls.

While these latest survey results showed consistent rates of autism from 2019 to 2021, a different CDC report earlier this year showed an alarming jump in the rate of autism spectrum disorder among 8-year-olds. That report, which compared data from 2008 to 2020, showed the rate of autism among 8-year-olds rose during those 12 years from 1 in 88 kids to 1 in 36 kids.

The two analyses also differed in their findings regarding prevalence of autism when looking at children by race and ethnicity. The report from earlier this year showed that Black and Hispanic children were more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with White children. This latest report did not find any differences in the prevalence of autism based on a child’s race or ethnicity.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Maurie Markman, MD, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia. I wanted to discuss a highly provocative paper that I think deserves attention. It was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, titled Physical Activity in Stage III Colon Cancer: CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance).

This is an incredibly important paper that highlights something that has not been emphasized enough in oncology practice. What are the things that we can recommend to our patients that are not expensive, but which they can do for themselves to impact a potential for adding to a positive outcome? In this case, we’re talking about physical activity.

This was an extremely well-conducted study. It was a prospective cohort study that was built into an ongoing phase 3 randomized, multicenter study looking at adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer. The median follow-up in this population was almost 6 years. We’re talking about 1,696 patients.

The investigators did a survey, asking patients when they started treatment and then a short time after that, and measured the level of recreational physical activity. They didn’t do a design. They asked the individuals how much activity they had.

There were a number of analyses done in terms of looking at this that were reported in the paper. I want to highlight one because it’s so simple. The investigators looked at brisk walking. For brisk walking, the 3-year disease-free survival was 81.7% for individuals who had less than 1 hour per week of brisk walking versus 88.4% for individuals who walked briskly more than 3 hours per week.

Walking an additional 2 hours or more per week, prospectively viewed in individuals who had the same baseline characteristics otherwise, impacted disease-free survival in stage III colon cancer. There is no additional expense. It’s walking. There were other activities that were looked at here, including aerobic activities.

The bottom line is that physical activity is positive, is not expensive, and focuses on what the individual patient can do for themselves. It’s something I believe that, in the oncology community, we need to emphasize more.

I encourage you to review this paper and use your own opinion as to what you want to do with this information, but I strongly urge you to look at this – and other types of activities – that we can recommend that individuals do themselves to impact their outcomes related to cancer.

Dr. Markman is a clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia. He reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Maurie Markman, MD, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia. I wanted to discuss a highly provocative paper that I think deserves attention. It was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, titled Physical Activity in Stage III Colon Cancer: CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance).

This is an incredibly important paper that highlights something that has not been emphasized enough in oncology practice. What are the things that we can recommend to our patients that are not expensive, but which they can do for themselves to impact a potential for adding to a positive outcome? In this case, we’re talking about physical activity.

This was an extremely well-conducted study. It was a prospective cohort study that was built into an ongoing phase 3 randomized, multicenter study looking at adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer. The median follow-up in this population was almost 6 years. We’re talking about 1,696 patients.

The investigators did a survey, asking patients when they started treatment and then a short time after that, and measured the level of recreational physical activity. They didn’t do a design. They asked the individuals how much activity they had.

There were a number of analyses done in terms of looking at this that were reported in the paper. I want to highlight one because it’s so simple. The investigators looked at brisk walking. For brisk walking, the 3-year disease-free survival was 81.7% for individuals who had less than 1 hour per week of brisk walking versus 88.4% for individuals who walked briskly more than 3 hours per week.

Walking an additional 2 hours or more per week, prospectively viewed in individuals who had the same baseline characteristics otherwise, impacted disease-free survival in stage III colon cancer. There is no additional expense. It’s walking. There were other activities that were looked at here, including aerobic activities.

The bottom line is that physical activity is positive, is not expensive, and focuses on what the individual patient can do for themselves. It’s something I believe that, in the oncology community, we need to emphasize more.

I encourage you to review this paper and use your own opinion as to what you want to do with this information, but I strongly urge you to look at this – and other types of activities – that we can recommend that individuals do themselves to impact their outcomes related to cancer.

Dr. Markman is a clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia. He reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Maurie Markman, MD, from Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia. I wanted to discuss a highly provocative paper that I think deserves attention. It was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, titled Physical Activity in Stage III Colon Cancer: CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance).

This is an incredibly important paper that highlights something that has not been emphasized enough in oncology practice. What are the things that we can recommend to our patients that are not expensive, but which they can do for themselves to impact a potential for adding to a positive outcome? In this case, we’re talking about physical activity.

This was an extremely well-conducted study. It was a prospective cohort study that was built into an ongoing phase 3 randomized, multicenter study looking at adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer. The median follow-up in this population was almost 6 years. We’re talking about 1,696 patients.

The investigators did a survey, asking patients when they started treatment and then a short time after that, and measured the level of recreational physical activity. They didn’t do a design. They asked the individuals how much activity they had.

There were a number of analyses done in terms of looking at this that were reported in the paper. I want to highlight one because it’s so simple. The investigators looked at brisk walking. For brisk walking, the 3-year disease-free survival was 81.7% for individuals who had less than 1 hour per week of brisk walking versus 88.4% for individuals who walked briskly more than 3 hours per week.

Walking an additional 2 hours or more per week, prospectively viewed in individuals who had the same baseline characteristics otherwise, impacted disease-free survival in stage III colon cancer. There is no additional expense. It’s walking. There were other activities that were looked at here, including aerobic activities.

The bottom line is that physical activity is positive, is not expensive, and focuses on what the individual patient can do for themselves. It’s something I believe that, in the oncology community, we need to emphasize more.

I encourage you to review this paper and use your own opinion as to what you want to do with this information, but I strongly urge you to look at this – and other types of activities – that we can recommend that individuals do themselves to impact their outcomes related to cancer.

Dr. Markman is a clinical professor of medicine at Drexel University, Philadelphia. He reported conflicts of interest with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, and Amgen.

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

What is a healthy weight? A definitive answer to this seemingly innocent question continues to evade the medical community. In 1832, Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet introduced the concept of body mass index (BMI) – one’s weight (in kilograms) divided by the square of one’s height (in meters) as a measurement of ideal body weight. Approximately 140 years later, nutritional epidemiologist Ancel Keys proposed the use of BMI as a surrogate marker for evaluating body fat percentage within a population.

For the past 50 years, the scientific and medical communities have relied on BMI as a research and study tool to categorize patients’ weight (that is, severely underweight, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obesity). The World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use the following BMI weight classifications for adult patients:

• Underweight: BMI < 18.5
• Normal weight: BMI ≥ 18.5 to 24.9
• Overweight: BMI ≥ 25 to 29.9
• Obesity: BMI ≥ 30

Of note, BMI categories for children and adolescents (aged 2-19 years) are based on sex- and age-specific percentiles and will not be addressed in this article.

BMI appears to be a straightforward, easy, and cost-effective way to identify “healthy” weight and assess a patient’s risk for related conditions. For example, studies show that a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² correlates to higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and decreased lifespan. At least 13 types of cancer have been linked to obesity, regardless of dietary or physical activity behaviors. While the health dangers associated with BMI ≥ 35 are substantial and difficult to dispute, concerns arise when BMI alone is used to determine healthy weight and disease risk in patients with a BMI of 25-35.
 

BMI limitations

There are troubling limitations to using BMI alone to assess a patient’s weight and health status. BMI only takes into account a patient’s height and weight, neither of which are sole determinants of health. Moreover, BMI measurements do not distinguish between fat mass and fat-free mass, each of which has very distinct effects on health. High fat mass is associated with an increased risk for disease and mortality, while higher lean body mass correlates with increased physical fitness and longevity. BMI also does not consider age, sex, race, ethnicity, or types of adipose tissue, all of which tremendously influence disease risk across all BMI categories.

Body composition and adipose tissue

Body composition and type of excess adipose tissue better correlate disease risk than does BMI. The World Health Organization defines obesity as having a body fat percentage > 25% for men and > 35% for women. Body composition can be measured by skin-fold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), CT, or MRI.

A cross-sectional study by Shah and colleagues) comparing BMI and DXA found that BMI underestimated obesity prevalence. In the study, BMI characterized 26% of participants as obese while DXA (a direct measurement of fat) characterized 64%. Further, 39% of patients categorized as nonobese based on BMI were found to be obese on DXA. Also, BMI misclassified 25% of men and 48% of women in the study. These findings and those of other studies suggest that BMI has a high specificity but low sensitivity for diagnosing obesity, questioning its reliability as a clinical screening tool.

Current guideline recommendations on pharmacologic and surgical treatment options for patients with overweight or obesity, including those of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and The Obesity Society (ACC/AHA/TOS), rely on BMI, diminishing their utilization. For example, a recent literature search by Li and associates found that Asian American patients with lower BMIs and BMIs of 25 or 27 are at increased risk for metabolic disease. On the basis of study findings, some organizations recommend considering pharmacotherapy at a lower BMI cutoff of ≥ 25.0 or ≥ 27.5 for Asian people to ensure early treatment intervention in this patient population because guidelines do not recommend pharmacologic treatment unless the BMI is 27 with weight-related complications or 30. Under the current guidelines, a patient of Asian descent has greater disease severity with potentially more complications by the time pharmacotherapy is initiated.

As previously noted, body composition, which requires the use of special equipment (skinfold calipers, DXA, CT, MRI, body impedance scale), best captures the ratio of fat mass to fat-free mass. DXA is frequently used in research studies looking at body composition because of its lower cost, faster time to obtain the study, and ability to measure bone density. MRI has been found to be as accurate as CT for assessing visceral adipose tissue (VAT), skeletal muscle mass, and organ mass, and does not expose patients to ionizing radiation like CT does. MRI clinical use, however, is limited because of its high cost, and it may be problematic for patients with claustrophobia or who are unable to remain immobile for an extended period.

Patients with a high VAT mass, compared with subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), are at increased risk for metabolic syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease regardless of BMI, underscoring the clinical usefulness of measuring visceral adiposity over BMI.

One of the barriers to implementing VAT assessment in clinical practice is the cost of imaging studies. Fortunately, data suggest that waist circumference and/or waist-to-hip ratio measurements can be a valuable surrogate for VAT measurement. A waist circumference greater than 35 inches (88 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.8 for women, and greater than 40 inches (102 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.95 for men, increases metabolic disease risk. Obtaining these measurements requires a tape measure and a few extra minutes and offers more potent data than BMI alone. For example, a large cardiometabolic study found that within each BMI category, increasing gender-specific waist circumferences were associated with significantly higher VAT, liver fat, and a more harmful cardiometabolic risk profile. Men and women with a lower or normal BMI and a high waist circumference are at greatest relative health risk, compared with those with low waist circumference values. Yet, using the BMI alone in these patients would not raise any clinical concern, which is a missed opportunity for cardiometabolic risk reduction.
 

Biomarkers

Specific biomarkers are closely related to obesity. Leptin and resistin protein levels increase with adipose mass, while adiponectin decreases, probably contributing to insulin resistance. The higher levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-6 from obesity contribute to chronic inflammation. The combined effect of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance allows greater bioavailability of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which has a role in initiating type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Ideally, measuring these biomarkers could provide more advantageous information than BMI. Unfortunately, for now, the lack of standardized assays and imperfect knowledge of exactly how these biomarkers elicit disease prevents clinical use.

Obesity is a common, highly complex, chronic, and relapsing disease. Thankfully, a number of effective treatments and interventions are available. Although an accurate diagnosis of obesity is essential, underdiagnosed cases and missed opportunities for metabolic disease risk reduction persist. Overdiagnosing obesity, however, has the potential to incur unnecessary health care costs and result in weight bias and stigma.

While BMI is a quick and inexpensive means to assess obesity, by itself it lacks the necessary components for an accurate diagnosis. Particularly for individuals with a normal BMI or less severe overweight/obesity (BMI 27-34.9), other factors must be accounted for, including age, gender, and race. At a minimum, waist circumference should be measured to best risk-stratify and determine treatment intensity. Body composition analysis with BMI calculation refines the diagnosis of obesity.

Finally, clinicians may find best practices by using BMI delta change models. As with so many other clinical measurements, the trajectory tells the most astute story. For example, a patient whose BMI decreased from 45 to 35 may warrant less intensive treatment than a patient whose BMI increased from 26 to 31. Any change in BMI warrants clinical attention. A rapidly or consistently increasing BMI, even within normal range, should prompt clinicians to assess other factors related to obesity and metabolic disease risk (for example, lifestyle factors, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes screening) and initiate a conversation about weight management. Similarly, a consistently or rapidly decreasing BMI – even in elevated ranges and particularly with unintentional weight loss – should prompt evaluation.

Although BMI continues to be useful in clinical practice, epidemiology, and research, it should be used in combination with other clinical factors to provide the utmost quality of care.

Dr. Bartfield is assistant professor, obesity medicine specialist, Wake Forest Baptists Medical Center/Atrium Health Weight Management Center, Greensboro, N.C. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What is a healthy weight? A definitive answer to this seemingly innocent question continues to evade the medical community. In 1832, Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet introduced the concept of body mass index (BMI) – one’s weight (in kilograms) divided by the square of one’s height (in meters) as a measurement of ideal body weight. Approximately 140 years later, nutritional epidemiologist Ancel Keys proposed the use of BMI as a surrogate marker for evaluating body fat percentage within a population.

For the past 50 years, the scientific and medical communities have relied on BMI as a research and study tool to categorize patients’ weight (that is, severely underweight, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obesity). The World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use the following BMI weight classifications for adult patients:

• Underweight: BMI < 18.5
• Normal weight: BMI ≥ 18.5 to 24.9
• Overweight: BMI ≥ 25 to 29.9
• Obesity: BMI ≥ 30

Of note, BMI categories for children and adolescents (aged 2-19 years) are based on sex- and age-specific percentiles and will not be addressed in this article.

BMI appears to be a straightforward, easy, and cost-effective way to identify “healthy” weight and assess a patient’s risk for related conditions. For example, studies show that a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² correlates to higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and decreased lifespan. At least 13 types of cancer have been linked to obesity, regardless of dietary or physical activity behaviors. While the health dangers associated with BMI ≥ 35 are substantial and difficult to dispute, concerns arise when BMI alone is used to determine healthy weight and disease risk in patients with a BMI of 25-35.
 

BMI limitations

There are troubling limitations to using BMI alone to assess a patient’s weight and health status. BMI only takes into account a patient’s height and weight, neither of which are sole determinants of health. Moreover, BMI measurements do not distinguish between fat mass and fat-free mass, each of which has very distinct effects on health. High fat mass is associated with an increased risk for disease and mortality, while higher lean body mass correlates with increased physical fitness and longevity. BMI also does not consider age, sex, race, ethnicity, or types of adipose tissue, all of which tremendously influence disease risk across all BMI categories.

Body composition and adipose tissue

Body composition and type of excess adipose tissue better correlate disease risk than does BMI. The World Health Organization defines obesity as having a body fat percentage > 25% for men and > 35% for women. Body composition can be measured by skin-fold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), CT, or MRI.

A cross-sectional study by Shah and colleagues) comparing BMI and DXA found that BMI underestimated obesity prevalence. In the study, BMI characterized 26% of participants as obese while DXA (a direct measurement of fat) characterized 64%. Further, 39% of patients categorized as nonobese based on BMI were found to be obese on DXA. Also, BMI misclassified 25% of men and 48% of women in the study. These findings and those of other studies suggest that BMI has a high specificity but low sensitivity for diagnosing obesity, questioning its reliability as a clinical screening tool.

Current guideline recommendations on pharmacologic and surgical treatment options for patients with overweight or obesity, including those of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and The Obesity Society (ACC/AHA/TOS), rely on BMI, diminishing their utilization. For example, a recent literature search by Li and associates found that Asian American patients with lower BMIs and BMIs of 25 or 27 are at increased risk for metabolic disease. On the basis of study findings, some organizations recommend considering pharmacotherapy at a lower BMI cutoff of ≥ 25.0 or ≥ 27.5 for Asian people to ensure early treatment intervention in this patient population because guidelines do not recommend pharmacologic treatment unless the BMI is 27 with weight-related complications or 30. Under the current guidelines, a patient of Asian descent has greater disease severity with potentially more complications by the time pharmacotherapy is initiated.

As previously noted, body composition, which requires the use of special equipment (skinfold calipers, DXA, CT, MRI, body impedance scale), best captures the ratio of fat mass to fat-free mass. DXA is frequently used in research studies looking at body composition because of its lower cost, faster time to obtain the study, and ability to measure bone density. MRI has been found to be as accurate as CT for assessing visceral adipose tissue (VAT), skeletal muscle mass, and organ mass, and does not expose patients to ionizing radiation like CT does. MRI clinical use, however, is limited because of its high cost, and it may be problematic for patients with claustrophobia or who are unable to remain immobile for an extended period.

Patients with a high VAT mass, compared with subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), are at increased risk for metabolic syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease regardless of BMI, underscoring the clinical usefulness of measuring visceral adiposity over BMI.

One of the barriers to implementing VAT assessment in clinical practice is the cost of imaging studies. Fortunately, data suggest that waist circumference and/or waist-to-hip ratio measurements can be a valuable surrogate for VAT measurement. A waist circumference greater than 35 inches (88 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.8 for women, and greater than 40 inches (102 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.95 for men, increases metabolic disease risk. Obtaining these measurements requires a tape measure and a few extra minutes and offers more potent data than BMI alone. For example, a large cardiometabolic study found that within each BMI category, increasing gender-specific waist circumferences were associated with significantly higher VAT, liver fat, and a more harmful cardiometabolic risk profile. Men and women with a lower or normal BMI and a high waist circumference are at greatest relative health risk, compared with those with low waist circumference values. Yet, using the BMI alone in these patients would not raise any clinical concern, which is a missed opportunity for cardiometabolic risk reduction.
 

Biomarkers

Specific biomarkers are closely related to obesity. Leptin and resistin protein levels increase with adipose mass, while adiponectin decreases, probably contributing to insulin resistance. The higher levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-6 from obesity contribute to chronic inflammation. The combined effect of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance allows greater bioavailability of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which has a role in initiating type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Ideally, measuring these biomarkers could provide more advantageous information than BMI. Unfortunately, for now, the lack of standardized assays and imperfect knowledge of exactly how these biomarkers elicit disease prevents clinical use.

Obesity is a common, highly complex, chronic, and relapsing disease. Thankfully, a number of effective treatments and interventions are available. Although an accurate diagnosis of obesity is essential, underdiagnosed cases and missed opportunities for metabolic disease risk reduction persist. Overdiagnosing obesity, however, has the potential to incur unnecessary health care costs and result in weight bias and stigma.

While BMI is a quick and inexpensive means to assess obesity, by itself it lacks the necessary components for an accurate diagnosis. Particularly for individuals with a normal BMI or less severe overweight/obesity (BMI 27-34.9), other factors must be accounted for, including age, gender, and race. At a minimum, waist circumference should be measured to best risk-stratify and determine treatment intensity. Body composition analysis with BMI calculation refines the diagnosis of obesity.

Finally, clinicians may find best practices by using BMI delta change models. As with so many other clinical measurements, the trajectory tells the most astute story. For example, a patient whose BMI decreased from 45 to 35 may warrant less intensive treatment than a patient whose BMI increased from 26 to 31. Any change in BMI warrants clinical attention. A rapidly or consistently increasing BMI, even within normal range, should prompt clinicians to assess other factors related to obesity and metabolic disease risk (for example, lifestyle factors, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes screening) and initiate a conversation about weight management. Similarly, a consistently or rapidly decreasing BMI – even in elevated ranges and particularly with unintentional weight loss – should prompt evaluation.

Although BMI continues to be useful in clinical practice, epidemiology, and research, it should be used in combination with other clinical factors to provide the utmost quality of care.

Dr. Bartfield is assistant professor, obesity medicine specialist, Wake Forest Baptists Medical Center/Atrium Health Weight Management Center, Greensboro, N.C. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What is a healthy weight? A definitive answer to this seemingly innocent question continues to evade the medical community. In 1832, Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet introduced the concept of body mass index (BMI) – one’s weight (in kilograms) divided by the square of one’s height (in meters) as a measurement of ideal body weight. Approximately 140 years later, nutritional epidemiologist Ancel Keys proposed the use of BMI as a surrogate marker for evaluating body fat percentage within a population.

For the past 50 years, the scientific and medical communities have relied on BMI as a research and study tool to categorize patients’ weight (that is, severely underweight, underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obesity). The World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use the following BMI weight classifications for adult patients:

• Underweight: BMI < 18.5
• Normal weight: BMI ≥ 18.5 to 24.9
• Overweight: BMI ≥ 25 to 29.9
• Obesity: BMI ≥ 30

Of note, BMI categories for children and adolescents (aged 2-19 years) are based on sex- and age-specific percentiles and will not be addressed in this article.

BMI appears to be a straightforward, easy, and cost-effective way to identify “healthy” weight and assess a patient’s risk for related conditions. For example, studies show that a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² correlates to higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and decreased lifespan. At least 13 types of cancer have been linked to obesity, regardless of dietary or physical activity behaviors. While the health dangers associated with BMI ≥ 35 are substantial and difficult to dispute, concerns arise when BMI alone is used to determine healthy weight and disease risk in patients with a BMI of 25-35.
 

BMI limitations

There are troubling limitations to using BMI alone to assess a patient’s weight and health status. BMI only takes into account a patient’s height and weight, neither of which are sole determinants of health. Moreover, BMI measurements do not distinguish between fat mass and fat-free mass, each of which has very distinct effects on health. High fat mass is associated with an increased risk for disease and mortality, while higher lean body mass correlates with increased physical fitness and longevity. BMI also does not consider age, sex, race, ethnicity, or types of adipose tissue, all of which tremendously influence disease risk across all BMI categories.

Body composition and adipose tissue

Body composition and type of excess adipose tissue better correlate disease risk than does BMI. The World Health Organization defines obesity as having a body fat percentage > 25% for men and > 35% for women. Body composition can be measured by skin-fold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), CT, or MRI.

A cross-sectional study by Shah and colleagues) comparing BMI and DXA found that BMI underestimated obesity prevalence. In the study, BMI characterized 26% of participants as obese while DXA (a direct measurement of fat) characterized 64%. Further, 39% of patients categorized as nonobese based on BMI were found to be obese on DXA. Also, BMI misclassified 25% of men and 48% of women in the study. These findings and those of other studies suggest that BMI has a high specificity but low sensitivity for diagnosing obesity, questioning its reliability as a clinical screening tool.

Current guideline recommendations on pharmacologic and surgical treatment options for patients with overweight or obesity, including those of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and The Obesity Society (ACC/AHA/TOS), rely on BMI, diminishing their utilization. For example, a recent literature search by Li and associates found that Asian American patients with lower BMIs and BMIs of 25 or 27 are at increased risk for metabolic disease. On the basis of study findings, some organizations recommend considering pharmacotherapy at a lower BMI cutoff of ≥ 25.0 or ≥ 27.5 for Asian people to ensure early treatment intervention in this patient population because guidelines do not recommend pharmacologic treatment unless the BMI is 27 with weight-related complications or 30. Under the current guidelines, a patient of Asian descent has greater disease severity with potentially more complications by the time pharmacotherapy is initiated.

As previously noted, body composition, which requires the use of special equipment (skinfold calipers, DXA, CT, MRI, body impedance scale), best captures the ratio of fat mass to fat-free mass. DXA is frequently used in research studies looking at body composition because of its lower cost, faster time to obtain the study, and ability to measure bone density. MRI has been found to be as accurate as CT for assessing visceral adipose tissue (VAT), skeletal muscle mass, and organ mass, and does not expose patients to ionizing radiation like CT does. MRI clinical use, however, is limited because of its high cost, and it may be problematic for patients with claustrophobia or who are unable to remain immobile for an extended period.

Patients with a high VAT mass, compared with subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), are at increased risk for metabolic syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular disease regardless of BMI, underscoring the clinical usefulness of measuring visceral adiposity over BMI.

One of the barriers to implementing VAT assessment in clinical practice is the cost of imaging studies. Fortunately, data suggest that waist circumference and/or waist-to-hip ratio measurements can be a valuable surrogate for VAT measurement. A waist circumference greater than 35 inches (88 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.8 for women, and greater than 40 inches (102 cm) or a waist-to-hip ratio greater than 0.95 for men, increases metabolic disease risk. Obtaining these measurements requires a tape measure and a few extra minutes and offers more potent data than BMI alone. For example, a large cardiometabolic study found that within each BMI category, increasing gender-specific waist circumferences were associated with significantly higher VAT, liver fat, and a more harmful cardiometabolic risk profile. Men and women with a lower or normal BMI and a high waist circumference are at greatest relative health risk, compared with those with low waist circumference values. Yet, using the BMI alone in these patients would not raise any clinical concern, which is a missed opportunity for cardiometabolic risk reduction.
 

Biomarkers

Specific biomarkers are closely related to obesity. Leptin and resistin protein levels increase with adipose mass, while adiponectin decreases, probably contributing to insulin resistance. The higher levels of tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-6 from obesity contribute to chronic inflammation. The combined effect of chronic inflammation and insulin resistance allows greater bioavailability of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which has a role in initiating type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Ideally, measuring these biomarkers could provide more advantageous information than BMI. Unfortunately, for now, the lack of standardized assays and imperfect knowledge of exactly how these biomarkers elicit disease prevents clinical use.

Obesity is a common, highly complex, chronic, and relapsing disease. Thankfully, a number of effective treatments and interventions are available. Although an accurate diagnosis of obesity is essential, underdiagnosed cases and missed opportunities for metabolic disease risk reduction persist. Overdiagnosing obesity, however, has the potential to incur unnecessary health care costs and result in weight bias and stigma.

While BMI is a quick and inexpensive means to assess obesity, by itself it lacks the necessary components for an accurate diagnosis. Particularly for individuals with a normal BMI or less severe overweight/obesity (BMI 27-34.9), other factors must be accounted for, including age, gender, and race. At a minimum, waist circumference should be measured to best risk-stratify and determine treatment intensity. Body composition analysis with BMI calculation refines the diagnosis of obesity.

Finally, clinicians may find best practices by using BMI delta change models. As with so many other clinical measurements, the trajectory tells the most astute story. For example, a patient whose BMI decreased from 45 to 35 may warrant less intensive treatment than a patient whose BMI increased from 26 to 31. Any change in BMI warrants clinical attention. A rapidly or consistently increasing BMI, even within normal range, should prompt clinicians to assess other factors related to obesity and metabolic disease risk (for example, lifestyle factors, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes screening) and initiate a conversation about weight management. Similarly, a consistently or rapidly decreasing BMI – even in elevated ranges and particularly with unintentional weight loss – should prompt evaluation.

Although BMI continues to be useful in clinical practice, epidemiology, and research, it should be used in combination with other clinical factors to provide the utmost quality of care.

Dr. Bartfield is assistant professor, obesity medicine specialist, Wake Forest Baptists Medical Center/Atrium Health Weight Management Center, Greensboro, N.C. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study of Medicare providers found that advanced-practice clinicians (APCs) are an increasingly large part of the dermatology workforce, and that they are delivering ever-more care in both urban and rural areas.

Researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported in JAMA Dermatology that in 2013 APCs made up 28% of the dermatology clinician workforce. By 2020, they made up 37% of the dermatology clinicians giving care to Medicare beneficiaries.
 

Retrospective cohort study

APCs provided care in 15.5% of dermatology office visits in 2013 and 27.4% in 2020 (P =.02), the authors reported. “By 2020, more than one in four dermatology visits for patients with Medicare were delivered by APCs,” wrote the authors, led by Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, assistant professor of dermatology and health services research at MD Anderson.

“Everyone in dermatology is aware of the increasing adoption of advanced practice clinicians in the field,” Justin D. Arnold, MD, MMSc, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. “However, seeing how quickly this happening and the absolute number of these clinicians is still startling,” said Dr. Arnold, who in 2022 published a research letter in JAMA Dermatology on the impact of physician assistants in dermatology.

In that study, he and his coauthors reported that the PA workforce in dermatology was growing faster than in other specialties.

In the current study, Dr. Wehner and her colleagues identified 8,444 dermatology APCs and 14,402 physician dermatologists who provided 109.3 million Medicare office visits from 2013 to 2020. More than 80% of the procedures were performed by physicians, but APCs appeared to increasingly be taking on more of the procedural load.

Over the study period, APCs had an average annual increase of 12.6% in the number of premalignant lesion destructions performed; physicians saw an average 1.4% decline. For skin biopsies, APCs performed 11.7% more per year on average, compared with a 1.4% drop for physicians.

“This data is not surprising given most agree that skin biopsies and destruction of premalignant lesions are well within the scope of practice of APCs,” Dr. Arnold told this news organization.

The authors also reported that, while most APCs – similar to physician dermatologists – practice in metropolitan areas, they are working in other locations also. Slightly more than half of dermatology clinicians in micropolitan areas are APCs, and in rural areas, 88% of clinicians are APCs, Dr. Wehner and colleagues found.

APCs may be filling a gap in rural areas for Medicare patients, said Dr. Arnold, but, he added, “it is unclear if dermatology APCs are growing as quickly in practices that predominantly accept Medicaid and if dermatology APCs are expanding access to these populations.”

Dr. Arnold said he expected the number of APCs in dermatology to continue growing, serving commercially insured patients, as well. “There are a multitude of potential reasons for more APCs in dermatology, including difficulty recruiting dermatologists in rural communities, financial motivators, and the expansion of private equity, and the increasing acceptance of these clinicians within medicine and by patients.”

APCs can provide good-quality care if they are properly trained and supervised, said Dr. Arnold, adding that he is concerned, however, that the training and supervision is not being provided. “This study provides further evidence that dermatologists, and national dermatology organizations such as the AAD [American Academy of Dermatology], need to take a more active role in the leadership of APC training,” he said.

Dermatology, he noted, “would benefit from consensus guidelines on clinical competencies for dermatology APCs,” similar to an effort by the American College of Cardiology.

A review* published online in July noted that, compared with dermatologists, some data suggest that non-physician operators (NPOs) may have a higher rate of adverse events when performing aesthetic procedures, according to the authors of the review, led by Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, of the department of dermatology at the UTHealth Science Center in Houston. There is no mandatory reporting of complications for nonphysician providers, so the authors relied on data from cosmetic-focused practices, medical spas, and a survey by the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery of consumers and its members. More than half of the responding physicians “reported treating complications of a cosmetic procedure performed by an NPO,” the authors wrote. 

They also found higher rates of burns and discoloration among patients who were treated by NPOs. The injuries occurred primarily at medical spas.

“Although NPOs may help to meet the rising demand for dermatologic procedures, care should still be taken to prioritize patient safety and outcomes above all else, including financial profits and revenues,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Wehner and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships. Their study research was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant and by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Arnold also reports no relevant financial relationships. No author disclosures or funding information were available for the Clinics in Dermatology paper.

*Correction, 12/8/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the study design.

A study of Medicare providers found that advanced-practice clinicians (APCs) are an increasingly large part of the dermatology workforce, and that they are delivering ever-more care in both urban and rural areas.

Researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported in JAMA Dermatology that in 2013 APCs made up 28% of the dermatology clinician workforce. By 2020, they made up 37% of the dermatology clinicians giving care to Medicare beneficiaries.
 

Retrospective cohort study

APCs provided care in 15.5% of dermatology office visits in 2013 and 27.4% in 2020 (P =.02), the authors reported. “By 2020, more than one in four dermatology visits for patients with Medicare were delivered by APCs,” wrote the authors, led by Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, assistant professor of dermatology and health services research at MD Anderson.

“Everyone in dermatology is aware of the increasing adoption of advanced practice clinicians in the field,” Justin D. Arnold, MD, MMSc, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. “However, seeing how quickly this happening and the absolute number of these clinicians is still startling,” said Dr. Arnold, who in 2022 published a research letter in JAMA Dermatology on the impact of physician assistants in dermatology.

In that study, he and his coauthors reported that the PA workforce in dermatology was growing faster than in other specialties.

In the current study, Dr. Wehner and her colleagues identified 8,444 dermatology APCs and 14,402 physician dermatologists who provided 109.3 million Medicare office visits from 2013 to 2020. More than 80% of the procedures were performed by physicians, but APCs appeared to increasingly be taking on more of the procedural load.

Over the study period, APCs had an average annual increase of 12.6% in the number of premalignant lesion destructions performed; physicians saw an average 1.4% decline. For skin biopsies, APCs performed 11.7% more per year on average, compared with a 1.4% drop for physicians.

“This data is not surprising given most agree that skin biopsies and destruction of premalignant lesions are well within the scope of practice of APCs,” Dr. Arnold told this news organization.

The authors also reported that, while most APCs – similar to physician dermatologists – practice in metropolitan areas, they are working in other locations also. Slightly more than half of dermatology clinicians in micropolitan areas are APCs, and in rural areas, 88% of clinicians are APCs, Dr. Wehner and colleagues found.

APCs may be filling a gap in rural areas for Medicare patients, said Dr. Arnold, but, he added, “it is unclear if dermatology APCs are growing as quickly in practices that predominantly accept Medicaid and if dermatology APCs are expanding access to these populations.”

Dr. Arnold said he expected the number of APCs in dermatology to continue growing, serving commercially insured patients, as well. “There are a multitude of potential reasons for more APCs in dermatology, including difficulty recruiting dermatologists in rural communities, financial motivators, and the expansion of private equity, and the increasing acceptance of these clinicians within medicine and by patients.”

APCs can provide good-quality care if they are properly trained and supervised, said Dr. Arnold, adding that he is concerned, however, that the training and supervision is not being provided. “This study provides further evidence that dermatologists, and national dermatology organizations such as the AAD [American Academy of Dermatology], need to take a more active role in the leadership of APC training,” he said.

Dermatology, he noted, “would benefit from consensus guidelines on clinical competencies for dermatology APCs,” similar to an effort by the American College of Cardiology.

A review* published online in July noted that, compared with dermatologists, some data suggest that non-physician operators (NPOs) may have a higher rate of adverse events when performing aesthetic procedures, according to the authors of the review, led by Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, of the department of dermatology at the UTHealth Science Center in Houston. There is no mandatory reporting of complications for nonphysician providers, so the authors relied on data from cosmetic-focused practices, medical spas, and a survey by the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery of consumers and its members. More than half of the responding physicians “reported treating complications of a cosmetic procedure performed by an NPO,” the authors wrote. 

They also found higher rates of burns and discoloration among patients who were treated by NPOs. The injuries occurred primarily at medical spas.

“Although NPOs may help to meet the rising demand for dermatologic procedures, care should still be taken to prioritize patient safety and outcomes above all else, including financial profits and revenues,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Wehner and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships. Their study research was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant and by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Arnold also reports no relevant financial relationships. No author disclosures or funding information were available for the Clinics in Dermatology paper.

*Correction, 12/8/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the study design.

A study of Medicare providers found that advanced-practice clinicians (APCs) are an increasingly large part of the dermatology workforce, and that they are delivering ever-more care in both urban and rural areas.

Researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reported in JAMA Dermatology that in 2013 APCs made up 28% of the dermatology clinician workforce. By 2020, they made up 37% of the dermatology clinicians giving care to Medicare beneficiaries.
 

Retrospective cohort study

APCs provided care in 15.5% of dermatology office visits in 2013 and 27.4% in 2020 (P =.02), the authors reported. “By 2020, more than one in four dermatology visits for patients with Medicare were delivered by APCs,” wrote the authors, led by Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, assistant professor of dermatology and health services research at MD Anderson.

“Everyone in dermatology is aware of the increasing adoption of advanced practice clinicians in the field,” Justin D. Arnold, MD, MMSc, a 3rd-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. “However, seeing how quickly this happening and the absolute number of these clinicians is still startling,” said Dr. Arnold, who in 2022 published a research letter in JAMA Dermatology on the impact of physician assistants in dermatology.

In that study, he and his coauthors reported that the PA workforce in dermatology was growing faster than in other specialties.

In the current study, Dr. Wehner and her colleagues identified 8,444 dermatology APCs and 14,402 physician dermatologists who provided 109.3 million Medicare office visits from 2013 to 2020. More than 80% of the procedures were performed by physicians, but APCs appeared to increasingly be taking on more of the procedural load.

Over the study period, APCs had an average annual increase of 12.6% in the number of premalignant lesion destructions performed; physicians saw an average 1.4% decline. For skin biopsies, APCs performed 11.7% more per year on average, compared with a 1.4% drop for physicians.

“This data is not surprising given most agree that skin biopsies and destruction of premalignant lesions are well within the scope of practice of APCs,” Dr. Arnold told this news organization.

The authors also reported that, while most APCs – similar to physician dermatologists – practice in metropolitan areas, they are working in other locations also. Slightly more than half of dermatology clinicians in micropolitan areas are APCs, and in rural areas, 88% of clinicians are APCs, Dr. Wehner and colleagues found.

APCs may be filling a gap in rural areas for Medicare patients, said Dr. Arnold, but, he added, “it is unclear if dermatology APCs are growing as quickly in practices that predominantly accept Medicaid and if dermatology APCs are expanding access to these populations.”

Dr. Arnold said he expected the number of APCs in dermatology to continue growing, serving commercially insured patients, as well. “There are a multitude of potential reasons for more APCs in dermatology, including difficulty recruiting dermatologists in rural communities, financial motivators, and the expansion of private equity, and the increasing acceptance of these clinicians within medicine and by patients.”

APCs can provide good-quality care if they are properly trained and supervised, said Dr. Arnold, adding that he is concerned, however, that the training and supervision is not being provided. “This study provides further evidence that dermatologists, and national dermatology organizations such as the AAD [American Academy of Dermatology], need to take a more active role in the leadership of APC training,” he said.

Dermatology, he noted, “would benefit from consensus guidelines on clinical competencies for dermatology APCs,” similar to an effort by the American College of Cardiology.

A review* published online in July noted that, compared with dermatologists, some data suggest that non-physician operators (NPOs) may have a higher rate of adverse events when performing aesthetic procedures, according to the authors of the review, led by Shelby L. Kubicki, MD, of the department of dermatology at the UTHealth Science Center in Houston. There is no mandatory reporting of complications for nonphysician providers, so the authors relied on data from cosmetic-focused practices, medical spas, and a survey by the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery of consumers and its members. More than half of the responding physicians “reported treating complications of a cosmetic procedure performed by an NPO,” the authors wrote. 

They also found higher rates of burns and discoloration among patients who were treated by NPOs. The injuries occurred primarily at medical spas.

“Although NPOs may help to meet the rising demand for dermatologic procedures, care should still be taken to prioritize patient safety and outcomes above all else, including financial profits and revenues,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Wehner and her colleagues report no relevant financial relationships. Their study research was supported, in part, by a Cancer Center Support Grant and by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Dr. Arnold also reports no relevant financial relationships. No author disclosures or funding information were available for the Clinics in Dermatology paper.

*Correction, 12/8/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the study design.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.