This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

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

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

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

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

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

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic inflammatory disease that is characterized by tender inflamed nodules of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, disproportionately affects postpubertal females as well as Black/African American individuals. The nodules can rupture, form sinus tracts, and scar. ¹ Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polycystic ovary syndrome, depression, suicide, and substance use disorders. Because of the symptom burden and associated conditions, HS can be a painful and distressing disease that substantially impairs the quality of life for individuals with this condition. ²

Pain is a commonly reported symptom in HS that often goes untreated. Furthermore, HS-related pain is complex due to the involvement of different pain types that require various treatment modalities.³ According to Savage et al,⁴ recognizing whether HS-related pain is acute, chronic, neuropathic, or nociceptive is vital in establishing a framework for an effective pain management scheme. Currently, such established multimodal pain management strategies in dermatology do not exist. In 2021, dermatology-specific pain management strategies proposed the use of a multimodal regimen to address the multifaceted nature of HS-related pain.⁴ However, these strategies failed to recognize the systemic racial and ethnic biases in the US health care system that undermine pain management care for minority groups.^5,6 One approach to combatting racial disparities in pain management is determining average pain levels across racial groups.⁷ This study sought to compare HS-related pain scores by racial groups. Furthermore, we assessed differences in perception of patients’ respective pain management regimens by race. We hypothesized that the average HS-related pain intensities and pain management would differ between self-reported racial groups.

Methods  

This cross-sectional study took place over 5 months (August through December 2021). A survey was emailed to 2198 adult patients with HS in the University of Alabama Health System. The survey consisted of demographic and general questions about a patient’s HS. Pain scores were captured using the numeric rating scale (NRS), a measurement tool for pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10. ⁸ Age at diagnosis, gender, education level, household income, total body areas affected by HS, disease severity (categorized as mild, moderate, and severe), comorbidities including mood disorders, tobacco use, and HS and HS-related pain medication regimens also were collected. Additionally, participants were asked about their level of agreement with the following statements: “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors” and “My pain related to HS is under control.” The level of agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All data included in the analysis were self-reported. The study received institutional review board approval for the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were used to assess statistical differences in patient characteristics of Black/African American participants compared to other participants, including White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants. Thirteen participants were excluded from the final analysis: 2 participants were missing data, and 11 biracial participants were excluded due to overlapping White and Black/African American races that may have confounded the analysis. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies and percentages, and χ² and Fisher exact tests, when necessary, were used to test for statistically significant differences. Continuous variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, and a t test was used for statistically significant differences.

Logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between race and pain after adjusting for confounding variables such as obesity, current tobacco use, self-reported HS severity, and the presence of comorbidities. A total of 204 patient records were included in the analysis, of which 70 (34.3%) had a pain score of 8 or higher, which indicates very severe pain intensity levels on the NRS,⁸ and were selected as a cut point based on the distribution of responses. For this cross-sectional cohort, our approach was to compare characteristics of those classified with a top score of 8 or higher (n=70) vs a top score of 0 to 7 (n=134)(cases vs noncases). Statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro 16 (JMP Statistical Discovery LLC) at an α=.05 significance level; logistic regression was performed using SPSS Statistics (IBM). For the logistic regression, we grouped patient race into 2 categories: Black/African American and Other, which included White, Asian, and Hispanic/Latino participants.

Crude and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to calculate prevalence odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Covariate inclusion in the multivariable logistic regression was based on a priori hypothesis/knowledge and was meant to estimate the independent effect of race after adjustment for income, HS severity, and history of prescription pain medication use. Other variables, including tobacco use, obesity, mood disorders, and current HS treatments, were all individually tested in the multivariate analysis and did not significantly impact the odds ratio for high pain. Statistical adjustment slightly decreased (19%) the magnitude between crude and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for the association between Black/African American race and high pain score.

Results  

Survey Demographics —The final analysis included 204 survey respondents. Most respondents were Black/African American (58.82%), and nearly all were female (89.71%)(Table 1). The mean age (SD) of respondents was 37.37 (11.29) years (range, 19-70 years). Many respondents reported having completed some college (36.27%) or receiving a bachelor’s degree (19.12%). Of patients who were not Black/African American, 10.71% had higher than a master’s degree, whereas no Black/African American patients held a degree higher than a master’s ( P = .0052). Additionally, more Black/African American respondents (35.83%) reported an annual household income level of less than $25,000 compared with respondents who were not Black/African American (19.05%, P = .0001). Most respondents rated the severity of their HS as moderate or severe (46.57% and 41.67%, respectively), and there was no significant difference in reported severity of HS between racial groups ( P = .5395).

Pain Scores—As documented in the Methods, respondents were asked to rate their HS-related pain intensity from 0 to 10 using the NRS. The average pain score (SD)—the level of pain intensity over the prior month—was 6.39 (2.56)(range, 0–10). The mean pain score (SD) at the time of the survey was 3.61 (2.98)(range, 0–10)(Table 1). These data revealed that Black/African American patients had a significantly higher average pain score (SD) than patients with HS who were not Black/African American (7.08 [2.49] and 5.40 [2.35], respectively; P<.0001). After adjustment with multivariable logistical regression, Black/African American patients had 4-fold increased odds for very severe levels of pain (score of ≥8) compared with patients who were not Black/African American.

Pain Management—Although pain scores were higher for Black/African American patients with HS, there was no significant difference in the perception of pain control between racial groups (P=.0761). Additionally, we found low income (adjusted prevalence odds ratio [POR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.91), a history of prescription pain medication use (adjusted POR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.13-4.51), and HS severity (adjusted POR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.11-17.36) all to be independent risk factors contributing to higher pain scores in patients with HS (Table 2). Lastly, we noted current or reported history of pain medication use was significantly correlated with higher pain scores (P=.0280 and P=.0213, respectively).

Satisfaction With Pain Management—The level of satisfaction with physician management of HS-related pain was significantly different between Black/African American patients and those who were not Black/African American (P=.0129). Of those who identified as Black/African American, 26.7% (n=32) strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am satisfied with how my pain related to HS is being managed by my doctors,” whereas only 15.5% (n=13) of patients who were not Black/African American strongly disagreed. 

Comment

There is no cure for HS, and a large focus of treatment is pain management. Because racial disparities in the treatment of chronic pain will affect those with HS, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pain and pain management among HS patients. We found that Black/African American patients with HS have higher average pain scores than those who are not Black/African American and were 4 times more likely to experience very severe pain. Prior studies have established that patients with HS often report higher pain levels than patients with other chronic inflammatory skin conditions, ^7,8 and our study identified racial disparities in HS-related pain management.

Measuring pain is challenging because of its multidimensional and subjective nature, making it essential to consider underlying causes and patients’ emotional responses to pain.⁹ By adjusting for confounding factors that may influence pain, such as mood disorders, disease severity, comorbidities, and medication use, we were able to gain better insight into fundamental differences in average pain intensity levels among racial groups and assess what factors may be contributing to a patient’s pain perception. Our study determined that lower income levels, higher HS disease severity, and a history of prescription pain medication use were all independent risk factors for high pain. Of note, obesity, tobacco use, and mood disorders such as anxiety and depression did not significantly differ between racial groups or increase the odds of high pain between racial groups identified.

With low income being an independent risk factor for high pain, we must consider the social determinants of health and how they may influence the pain experience in HS. We speculate that low income may be associated with other social determinants of health for the patients assessed in this study, such as lack of social and community support or limited health care access that contribute to worse health outcomes.^10,11 In addition, low income contributes to limited access to medical care or treatments¹²; without access to effective HS management, lower-income patients may be at risk for higher disease severity and thus higher pain levels. However, economic stability is only a part of the whole picture; therefore, assessing the other social determinants of health in patients with HS may lead to better health outcomes and quality of life.

Another identified risk factor for high pain was a reported history of prescription pain medication use. This finding suggests that patients with moderate to severe pain likely have required stronger analgesic medications in the past. We further speculate that high pain levels in patients who have received prescription pain medications indicate either undertreatment, mistreatment, or recalcitrant pain. More research is needed to assess the relationship between HS-related pain intensity, analgesic medications, and providers who manage HS-related pain.

We also found that Black/African American patients with HS had a significantly higher dissatisfaction with their physician’s management of their pain, which could be attributable to several factors, including biological differences in medication metabolism (in which the patient has medication-resistant HS), undertreatment of pain, and/or poor doctor-patient relations. These reasons coincide with other diseases where health disparities are found.^13-15 Recognizing these factors will be key to dismantling the disparities in HS that are noted within this study. The limitations of this work include the cross-sectional study design and its inability to evaluate causal factors of high pain levels across racial groups, the NRS lack of insight on pain chronicity or pain experience,⁷ the lack of provider or institution perspectives, and self-reported data. Additionally, only patients with email access were included, which may have excluded vulnerable populations with more pain associated with their HS.

Our findings highlight an area for further investigation to assess why these racial differences exist in HS-related pain. The results also emphasize the need for research evaluating whether systemic or health care provider biases contribute to racial differences in HS-related pain management.

Acknowledgment — Dr. Weir was supported by the Predoctoral Clinical/Translational Research Program (TL1), a National Institutes of Health Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), through the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS).  

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher levels of alcohol consumption appear to increase an individual’s risk of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), particularly distal colon and rectal cancers, according to a population-based study from South Korea.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators retrospectively compared average daily alcohol consumption with early-onset CRC risk among nearly 5.7 million adults younger than 50 years, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service.
• Alcohol consumption levels were defined as nondrinker, light (< 10 g/day or < 0.7 U.S. drinks/day), moderate (10-30 g/day for men, 10-20 g/day for women), and heavy (≥ 30 g/day or ≥ 2.1 drinks/day for men, ≥ 20 g/day or ≥ 1.4 drinks/day for women).
• The primary outcome was incidence of early-onset CRC diagnosed before age 50. Models were adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, exercise, and income, as well as for comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 8,314 incident early-onset CRC cases occurred during the mean follow-up period of 7.4 years.
• Compared with light drinking, moderate and heavy drinking were associated with a significantly elevated risk of early-onset CRC (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09 and 1.20, respectively); by sex, significant associations were found only among men.
• Among men, heavy drinking vs. light drinking was associated with a 26% increased risk of distal colon cancer, a 17% higher risk of rectal cancer, and a 29% higher risk of unspecified colon cancer (but not proximal colon cancer).
• Among women, moderate drinking was associated with a 47% increased risk of distal colon cancer. Among nondrinkers, there was a 14% reduced risk of rectal cancer, compared with light drinkers.

IN PRACTICE:

“This population-based study provides evidence that higher levels of alcohol consumption may increase the risk of early-onset CRC,” the investigators concluded. “[E]ffective interventions are required to discourage alcohol consumption among young people and to tailor CRC screening approaches for high-risk individuals.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by researchers at Seoul National University, South Korea. It was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include self-reported alcohol consumption. Data were missing for a higher number of male participants and younger participants, and there was a potential problem related to multiple comparisons and confounders. Only Korean individuals were included in the study, so larger studies involving various races are needed.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding was provided by grants from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. No potential conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications have revolutionized migraine therapy since being introduced in 2018. The initial preventive trials for monoclonal antibodies (mAb) excluded older adults, with a cutoff in all studies at age 65 years. Long-term safety studies have not revealed signals for concern related to vascular or other adverse events. The study by Muñoz-Vendrell and colleagues investigated the efficacy of CGRP mAb in treatment-refractory older adults.

This was an observational retrospective study in participants older than 65 years that had previously used three or more prior migraine preventives unsuccessfully. The primary endpoints were reduction in monthly migraine days after 6 months of treatment and the presence of adverse effects. Secondary endpoints were reductions in headache and acute medication frequency as well as improvement in patient reported outcomes.

A total of 162 participants were followed at 18 different headache centers throughout Spain. All patients had at least 8 headache days per month and had been treated unsuccessfully with three prior medications for migraine prevention, one of which was botulinum toxin. The median age was 68 years, and over 80% had chronic migraine. The reduction in mean headache days was 10 days per month; 72% continued to use their CGRP mAb after using it for 6 months. Participants were compared relative to medication overuse but no significant differences were found between those who overused medication and others.

This study highlights the efficacy of CGRP medications in those outside of the initially studied population. Other preventive medications may be contraindicated in this population, but CGRP antagonists do appear to be safe and effective options for older adults.

Opiate medications are typically considered inappropriate as an acute treatment for migraine. Even infrequent use of opiate medications has been shown to be associated with worse migraine outcomes, specifically higher frequency and a higher likelihood to convert from episodic to chronic migraine. Van Welie and colleagues performed a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessing levels of opioid use in patients with migraine.

Participants were selected from the Leiden Headache Center and fit the diagnostic criteria of migraine. They were given an e-questionnaire to determine their use of these opiates: buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, tapentadol, and tramadol (codeine was not included in this list). Patients were separately divided between chronic and episodic migraine groups. The primary outcome was assessing for current acute treatment of migraine with an opiate; secondary outcomes were association of chronicity of migraine and likelihood of medication overuse with opiate use.

Only approximately 1.8% of participants reported that they currently use an opiate for acute migraine treatment; 12.5% reported that they previously have used an opiate and 25.7% reported using an opiate for another pain condition. Tramadol was the most commonly used opiate medication, followed by oxycodone and morphine; 2.4% of patients reported that their opiate use was not prescribed by their doctor. Primary care doctors were the most common prescribers of the opiate medications; 16% of the time, patients were told that it was a preventive treatment for migraine. Opiate use was more frequent in patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine, and the duration of use was greater.

Opiate medications remain a poor acute choice of treatment for migraine, and this study shows a correlation between higher opiate use and chronic migraine. There are many other acute medications now available for migraine, many of them migraine-specific treatments, such as triptans, gepants, and ditans. This research again shows that opiates should be avoided if at all possible for migraine.

Patients with medication overuse headache are more likely to be treatment-refractory, and the addition of acute medications often can be less effective if they remain on the overused medication. There has been a long-standing debate whether it is best to wean medications first or start a preventive initially when faced with medication overuse. The CGRP antagonists may be one of the better preventive options in this situation, and one mAb (fremenezumab) reported positive data in a small medication overuse trial. The study by Guerzoni and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of galcanezumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse.

This was a prospective trial conducted at the University Hospital of Modena. A total of 78 patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse were enrolled for 15 months, with follow-up every 3 months. At each follow-up appointment, they completed a questionnaire asking them details about: mean migraine days per month, mean number of painkillers taken per month, mean days per month taking a painkiller, average migraine severity, and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questions. Patients were given the standard-dosing regimen of glacanezumab for migraine and were not blinded; this was an open-label study.

The mean migraine days per month were significantly reduced after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The amount of painkillers used per month and days of painkillers per month both reduced significantly as well. Migraine-related disability on HIT-6 and MIDAS were all reduced significantly as well. The most significant improvement long-term was noted in patients who improved the most during the initial 3 months of treatment.

The debate regarding the best treatment for patients with medication overuse will continue, but this study highlights the effectiveness of CGRP mAb use in this population. Patients were able to decrease the use of acute medications without a strict wean off of their previous medication. Ideally, a similar study should also be done for additional mAb and oral CGRP antagonists.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications have revolutionized migraine therapy since being introduced in 2018. The initial preventive trials for monoclonal antibodies (mAb) excluded older adults, with a cutoff in all studies at age 65 years. Long-term safety studies have not revealed signals for concern related to vascular or other adverse events. The study by Muñoz-Vendrell and colleagues investigated the efficacy of CGRP mAb in treatment-refractory older adults.

This was an observational retrospective study in participants older than 65 years that had previously used three or more prior migraine preventives unsuccessfully. The primary endpoints were reduction in monthly migraine days after 6 months of treatment and the presence of adverse effects. Secondary endpoints were reductions in headache and acute medication frequency as well as improvement in patient reported outcomes.

A total of 162 participants were followed at 18 different headache centers throughout Spain. All patients had at least 8 headache days per month and had been treated unsuccessfully with three prior medications for migraine prevention, one of which was botulinum toxin. The median age was 68 years, and over 80% had chronic migraine. The reduction in mean headache days was 10 days per month; 72% continued to use their CGRP mAb after using it for 6 months. Participants were compared relative to medication overuse but no significant differences were found between those who overused medication and others.

This study highlights the efficacy of CGRP medications in those outside of the initially studied population. Other preventive medications may be contraindicated in this population, but CGRP antagonists do appear to be safe and effective options for older adults.

Opiate medications are typically considered inappropriate as an acute treatment for migraine. Even infrequent use of opiate medications has been shown to be associated with worse migraine outcomes, specifically higher frequency and a higher likelihood to convert from episodic to chronic migraine. Van Welie and colleagues performed a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessing levels of opioid use in patients with migraine.

Participants were selected from the Leiden Headache Center and fit the diagnostic criteria of migraine. They were given an e-questionnaire to determine their use of these opiates: buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, tapentadol, and tramadol (codeine was not included in this list). Patients were separately divided between chronic and episodic migraine groups. The primary outcome was assessing for current acute treatment of migraine with an opiate; secondary outcomes were association of chronicity of migraine and likelihood of medication overuse with opiate use.

Only approximately 1.8% of participants reported that they currently use an opiate for acute migraine treatment; 12.5% reported that they previously have used an opiate and 25.7% reported using an opiate for another pain condition. Tramadol was the most commonly used opiate medication, followed by oxycodone and morphine; 2.4% of patients reported that their opiate use was not prescribed by their doctor. Primary care doctors were the most common prescribers of the opiate medications; 16% of the time, patients were told that it was a preventive treatment for migraine. Opiate use was more frequent in patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine, and the duration of use was greater.

Opiate medications remain a poor acute choice of treatment for migraine, and this study shows a correlation between higher opiate use and chronic migraine. There are many other acute medications now available for migraine, many of them migraine-specific treatments, such as triptans, gepants, and ditans. This research again shows that opiates should be avoided if at all possible for migraine.

Patients with medication overuse headache are more likely to be treatment-refractory, and the addition of acute medications often can be less effective if they remain on the overused medication. There has been a long-standing debate whether it is best to wean medications first or start a preventive initially when faced with medication overuse. The CGRP antagonists may be one of the better preventive options in this situation, and one mAb (fremenezumab) reported positive data in a small medication overuse trial. The study by Guerzoni and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of galcanezumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse.

This was a prospective trial conducted at the University Hospital of Modena. A total of 78 patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse were enrolled for 15 months, with follow-up every 3 months. At each follow-up appointment, they completed a questionnaire asking them details about: mean migraine days per month, mean number of painkillers taken per month, mean days per month taking a painkiller, average migraine severity, and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questions. Patients were given the standard-dosing regimen of glacanezumab for migraine and were not blinded; this was an open-label study.

The mean migraine days per month were significantly reduced after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The amount of painkillers used per month and days of painkillers per month both reduced significantly as well. Migraine-related disability on HIT-6 and MIDAS were all reduced significantly as well. The most significant improvement long-term was noted in patients who improved the most during the initial 3 months of treatment.

The debate regarding the best treatment for patients with medication overuse will continue, but this study highlights the effectiveness of CGRP mAb use in this population. Patients were able to decrease the use of acute medications without a strict wean off of their previous medication. Ideally, a similar study should also be done for additional mAb and oral CGRP antagonists.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications have revolutionized migraine therapy since being introduced in 2018. The initial preventive trials for monoclonal antibodies (mAb) excluded older adults, with a cutoff in all studies at age 65 years. Long-term safety studies have not revealed signals for concern related to vascular or other adverse events. The study by Muñoz-Vendrell and colleagues investigated the efficacy of CGRP mAb in treatment-refractory older adults.

This was an observational retrospective study in participants older than 65 years that had previously used three or more prior migraine preventives unsuccessfully. The primary endpoints were reduction in monthly migraine days after 6 months of treatment and the presence of adverse effects. Secondary endpoints were reductions in headache and acute medication frequency as well as improvement in patient reported outcomes.

A total of 162 participants were followed at 18 different headache centers throughout Spain. All patients had at least 8 headache days per month and had been treated unsuccessfully with three prior medications for migraine prevention, one of which was botulinum toxin. The median age was 68 years, and over 80% had chronic migraine. The reduction in mean headache days was 10 days per month; 72% continued to use their CGRP mAb after using it for 6 months. Participants were compared relative to medication overuse but no significant differences were found between those who overused medication and others.

This study highlights the efficacy of CGRP medications in those outside of the initially studied population. Other preventive medications may be contraindicated in this population, but CGRP antagonists do appear to be safe and effective options for older adults.

Opiate medications are typically considered inappropriate as an acute treatment for migraine. Even infrequent use of opiate medications has been shown to be associated with worse migraine outcomes, specifically higher frequency and a higher likelihood to convert from episodic to chronic migraine. Van Welie and colleagues performed a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessing levels of opioid use in patients with migraine.

Participants were selected from the Leiden Headache Center and fit the diagnostic criteria of migraine. They were given an e-questionnaire to determine their use of these opiates: buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, tapentadol, and tramadol (codeine was not included in this list). Patients were separately divided between chronic and episodic migraine groups. The primary outcome was assessing for current acute treatment of migraine with an opiate; secondary outcomes were association of chronicity of migraine and likelihood of medication overuse with opiate use.

Only approximately 1.8% of participants reported that they currently use an opiate for acute migraine treatment; 12.5% reported that they previously have used an opiate and 25.7% reported using an opiate for another pain condition. Tramadol was the most commonly used opiate medication, followed by oxycodone and morphine; 2.4% of patients reported that their opiate use was not prescribed by their doctor. Primary care doctors were the most common prescribers of the opiate medications; 16% of the time, patients were told that it was a preventive treatment for migraine. Opiate use was more frequent in patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine, and the duration of use was greater.

Opiate medications remain a poor acute choice of treatment for migraine, and this study shows a correlation between higher opiate use and chronic migraine. There are many other acute medications now available for migraine, many of them migraine-specific treatments, such as triptans, gepants, and ditans. This research again shows that opiates should be avoided if at all possible for migraine.

Patients with medication overuse headache are more likely to be treatment-refractory, and the addition of acute medications often can be less effective if they remain on the overused medication. There has been a long-standing debate whether it is best to wean medications first or start a preventive initially when faced with medication overuse. The CGRP antagonists may be one of the better preventive options in this situation, and one mAb (fremenezumab) reported positive data in a small medication overuse trial. The study by Guerzoni and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of galcanezumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse.

This was a prospective trial conducted at the University Hospital of Modena. A total of 78 patients with a diagnosis of chronic migraine and medication overuse were enrolled for 15 months, with follow-up every 3 months. At each follow-up appointment, they completed a questionnaire asking them details about: mean migraine days per month, mean number of painkillers taken per month, mean days per month taking a painkiller, average migraine severity, and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questions. Patients were given the standard-dosing regimen of glacanezumab for migraine and were not blinded; this was an open-label study.

The mean migraine days per month were significantly reduced after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The amount of painkillers used per month and days of painkillers per month both reduced significantly as well. Migraine-related disability on HIT-6 and MIDAS were all reduced significantly as well. The most significant improvement long-term was noted in patients who improved the most during the initial 3 months of treatment.

The debate regarding the best treatment for patients with medication overuse will continue, but this study highlights the effectiveness of CGRP mAb use in this population. Patients were able to decrease the use of acute medications without a strict wean off of their previous medication. Ideally, a similar study should also be done for additional mAb and oral CGRP antagonists.

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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