SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

The Diagnosis: Hypopigmented Mycosis Fungoides

Histopathology showed an atypical lymphoid infiltrate with expanded cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei of irregular contours in the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical stains of atypical lymphocytes demonstrated the presence of CD3, CD8, and CD5, as well as the absence of CD7 and CD4 lymphocytes (Figure 2). The T-cell γ rearrangement showed polyclonal lymphocytes with 5% tumor cells. The histologic and clinical findings along with our patient’s medical history led to a diagnosis of stage IA (<10% body surface area involvement) hypopigmented mycosis fungoides (hMF).¹ Our patient was treated with triamcinolone cream 0.1%; she noted an improvement in her symptoms at 2-month follow-up.

Hypopigmented MF is an uncommon manifestation of MF with unknown prevalence and incidence rates. Mycosis fungoides is considered the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that classically presents as a chronic, indolent, hypopigmented or depigmented macule or patch, commonly with scaling, in sunprotected areas such as the trunk and proximal arms and legs. It predominantly affects younger adults with darker skin tones and may be present in the pediatric population within the first decade of life.¹ Classically, MF affects White patients aged 55 to 60 years. Disease progression is slow, with an incidence rate of 10% of tumor or extracutaneous involvement in the early stages of disease. A lack of specificity on the clinical and histopathologic findings in the initial stage often contributes to the diagnostic delay of hMF. As seen in our patient, this disease can be misdiagnosed as tinea versicolor, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, vitiligo, pityriasis alba, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, or Hansen disease due to prolonged hypopigmented lesions.² The clinical findings and histopathologic results including immunohistochemistry confirmed the diagnosis of hMF and ruled out pityriasis alba, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.

The etiology and pathophysiology of hMF are not fully understood; however, it is hypothesized that melanocyte degeneration, abnormal melanogenesis, and disturbance of melanosome transfer result from the clonal expansion of T helper memory cells. T-cell dyscrasia has been reported to evolve into hMF during etanercept therapy.³ Clinically, hMF presents as hypopigmented papulosquamous, eczematous, or erythrodermic patches, plaques, and tumors with poorly defined atrophied borders. Multiple biopsies of steroid-naive lesions are needed for the diagnosis, as the initial hMF histologic finding cannot be specific for diagnostic confirmation. Common histopathologic findings include a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with epidermotropism, intraepidermal nests of atypical cells, or cerebriform nuclei lymphocytes on hematoxylin and eosin staining. In comparison to classical MF epidermotropism, CD4− and CD8+ atypical cells aid in the diagnosis of hMF. Although hMF carries a good prognosis and a benign clinical course,⁴ full-body computed tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography as well as laboratory analysis for lactate dehydrogenase should be pursued if lymphadenopathy, systemic symptoms, or advancedstage hMF are present.

Treatment of hMF depends on the disease stage. Psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB can be utilized for the initial stages with a relatively fast response and remission of lesions as early as the first 2 months of treatment. In addition to phototherapy, stage IA to IIA mycosis fungoides with localized skin lesions can benefit from topical steroids, topical retinoids, imiquimod, nitrogen mustard, and carmustine. For advanced stages of mycosis fungoides, combination therapy consisting of psoralen plus UVA with an oral retinoid, interferon alfa, and systemic chemotherapy commonly are prescribed. Maintenance therapy is used for prolonging remission; however, long-term phototherapy is not recommended due to the risk for skin cancer. Unfortunately, hMF requires long-term treatment due to its waxing and waning course, and recurrence may occur after complete resolution.⁵

The Diagnosis: Hypopigmented Mycosis Fungoides

Histopathology showed an atypical lymphoid infiltrate with expanded cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei of irregular contours in the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical stains of atypical lymphocytes demonstrated the presence of CD3, CD8, and CD5, as well as the absence of CD7 and CD4 lymphocytes (Figure 2). The T-cell γ rearrangement showed polyclonal lymphocytes with 5% tumor cells. The histologic and clinical findings along with our patient’s medical history led to a diagnosis of stage IA (<10% body surface area involvement) hypopigmented mycosis fungoides (hMF).¹ Our patient was treated with triamcinolone cream 0.1%; she noted an improvement in her symptoms at 2-month follow-up.

Hypopigmented MF is an uncommon manifestation of MF with unknown prevalence and incidence rates. Mycosis fungoides is considered the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that classically presents as a chronic, indolent, hypopigmented or depigmented macule or patch, commonly with scaling, in sunprotected areas such as the trunk and proximal arms and legs. It predominantly affects younger adults with darker skin tones and may be present in the pediatric population within the first decade of life.¹ Classically, MF affects White patients aged 55 to 60 years. Disease progression is slow, with an incidence rate of 10% of tumor or extracutaneous involvement in the early stages of disease. A lack of specificity on the clinical and histopathologic findings in the initial stage often contributes to the diagnostic delay of hMF. As seen in our patient, this disease can be misdiagnosed as tinea versicolor, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, vitiligo, pityriasis alba, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, or Hansen disease due to prolonged hypopigmented lesions.² The clinical findings and histopathologic results including immunohistochemistry confirmed the diagnosis of hMF and ruled out pityriasis alba, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.

The etiology and pathophysiology of hMF are not fully understood; however, it is hypothesized that melanocyte degeneration, abnormal melanogenesis, and disturbance of melanosome transfer result from the clonal expansion of T helper memory cells. T-cell dyscrasia has been reported to evolve into hMF during etanercept therapy.³ Clinically, hMF presents as hypopigmented papulosquamous, eczematous, or erythrodermic patches, plaques, and tumors with poorly defined atrophied borders. Multiple biopsies of steroid-naive lesions are needed for the diagnosis, as the initial hMF histologic finding cannot be specific for diagnostic confirmation. Common histopathologic findings include a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with epidermotropism, intraepidermal nests of atypical cells, or cerebriform nuclei lymphocytes on hematoxylin and eosin staining. In comparison to classical MF epidermotropism, CD4− and CD8+ atypical cells aid in the diagnosis of hMF. Although hMF carries a good prognosis and a benign clinical course,⁴ full-body computed tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography as well as laboratory analysis for lactate dehydrogenase should be pursued if lymphadenopathy, systemic symptoms, or advancedstage hMF are present.

Treatment of hMF depends on the disease stage. Psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB can be utilized for the initial stages with a relatively fast response and remission of lesions as early as the first 2 months of treatment. In addition to phototherapy, stage IA to IIA mycosis fungoides with localized skin lesions can benefit from topical steroids, topical retinoids, imiquimod, nitrogen mustard, and carmustine. For advanced stages of mycosis fungoides, combination therapy consisting of psoralen plus UVA with an oral retinoid, interferon alfa, and systemic chemotherapy commonly are prescribed. Maintenance therapy is used for prolonging remission; however, long-term phototherapy is not recommended due to the risk for skin cancer. Unfortunately, hMF requires long-term treatment due to its waxing and waning course, and recurrence may occur after complete resolution.⁵

The Diagnosis: Hypopigmented Mycosis Fungoides

Histopathology showed an atypical lymphoid infiltrate with expanded cytoplasm and hyperchromatic nuclei of irregular contours in the dermoepidermal junction (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical stains of atypical lymphocytes demonstrated the presence of CD3, CD8, and CD5, as well as the absence of CD7 and CD4 lymphocytes (Figure 2). The T-cell γ rearrangement showed polyclonal lymphocytes with 5% tumor cells. The histologic and clinical findings along with our patient’s medical history led to a diagnosis of stage IA (<10% body surface area involvement) hypopigmented mycosis fungoides (hMF).¹ Our patient was treated with triamcinolone cream 0.1%; she noted an improvement in her symptoms at 2-month follow-up.

Hypopigmented MF is an uncommon manifestation of MF with unknown prevalence and incidence rates. Mycosis fungoides is considered the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that classically presents as a chronic, indolent, hypopigmented or depigmented macule or patch, commonly with scaling, in sunprotected areas such as the trunk and proximal arms and legs. It predominantly affects younger adults with darker skin tones and may be present in the pediatric population within the first decade of life.¹ Classically, MF affects White patients aged 55 to 60 years. Disease progression is slow, with an incidence rate of 10% of tumor or extracutaneous involvement in the early stages of disease. A lack of specificity on the clinical and histopathologic findings in the initial stage often contributes to the diagnostic delay of hMF. As seen in our patient, this disease can be misdiagnosed as tinea versicolor, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, vitiligo, pityriasis alba, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, or Hansen disease due to prolonged hypopigmented lesions.² The clinical findings and histopathologic results including immunohistochemistry confirmed the diagnosis of hMF and ruled out pityriasis alba, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, subcutaneous lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.

The etiology and pathophysiology of hMF are not fully understood; however, it is hypothesized that melanocyte degeneration, abnormal melanogenesis, and disturbance of melanosome transfer result from the clonal expansion of T helper memory cells. T-cell dyscrasia has been reported to evolve into hMF during etanercept therapy.³ Clinically, hMF presents as hypopigmented papulosquamous, eczematous, or erythrodermic patches, plaques, and tumors with poorly defined atrophied borders. Multiple biopsies of steroid-naive lesions are needed for the diagnosis, as the initial hMF histologic finding cannot be specific for diagnostic confirmation. Common histopathologic findings include a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with epidermotropism, intraepidermal nests of atypical cells, or cerebriform nuclei lymphocytes on hematoxylin and eosin staining. In comparison to classical MF epidermotropism, CD4− and CD8+ atypical cells aid in the diagnosis of hMF. Although hMF carries a good prognosis and a benign clinical course,⁴ full-body computed tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography as well as laboratory analysis for lactate dehydrogenase should be pursued if lymphadenopathy, systemic symptoms, or advancedstage hMF are present.

Treatment of hMF depends on the disease stage. Psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB can be utilized for the initial stages with a relatively fast response and remission of lesions as early as the first 2 months of treatment. In addition to phototherapy, stage IA to IIA mycosis fungoides with localized skin lesions can benefit from topical steroids, topical retinoids, imiquimod, nitrogen mustard, and carmustine. For advanced stages of mycosis fungoides, combination therapy consisting of psoralen plus UVA with an oral retinoid, interferon alfa, and systemic chemotherapy commonly are prescribed. Maintenance therapy is used for prolonging remission; however, long-term phototherapy is not recommended due to the risk for skin cancer. Unfortunately, hMF requires long-term treatment due to its waxing and waning course, and recurrence may occur after complete resolution.⁵

A new study provides reassurance about the safety of long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

It was published online in Gastroenterology.

The post hoc observational study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The researchers analyzed results from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial. The randomized trial of aspirin included 18,934 adults aged 65 and older from the United States and Australia. Patients’ use of PPI and H2RA was tracked, along with dementia incidence and cognitive changes.

The results showed that there was no link to new dementia diagnoses in patients who used PPIs (25%) and H2RA (2%) at baseline, versus those who did not use either heartburn medication.

Limitations of prior studies are referenced, including the potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, the lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of apo E4 allele status.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions. Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new study provides reassurance about the safety of long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

It was published online in Gastroenterology.

The post hoc observational study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The researchers analyzed results from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial. The randomized trial of aspirin included 18,934 adults aged 65 and older from the United States and Australia. Patients’ use of PPI and H2RA was tracked, along with dementia incidence and cognitive changes.

The results showed that there was no link to new dementia diagnoses in patients who used PPIs (25%) and H2RA (2%) at baseline, versus those who did not use either heartburn medication.

Limitations of prior studies are referenced, including the potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, the lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of apo E4 allele status.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions. Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new study provides reassurance about the safety of long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) use in older adults, finding no increased risk for dementia or cognitive changes.

It was published online in Gastroenterology.

The post hoc observational study was led by Raaj Mehta, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The researchers analyzed results from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly clinical trial. The randomized trial of aspirin included 18,934 adults aged 65 and older from the United States and Australia. Patients’ use of PPI and H2RA was tracked, along with dementia incidence and cognitive changes.

The results showed that there was no link to new dementia diagnoses in patients who used PPIs (25%) and H2RA (2%) at baseline, versus those who did not use either heartburn medication.

Limitations of prior studies are referenced, including the potential for residual confounding and underestimation of PPI and H2RA use, the lack of data on medication dose and duration, and the absence of apo E4 allele status.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, and other institutions. Dr. Mehta has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

SAN DIEGO – The American Diabetes Association now advises universal screening of people with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes for fatty liver disease and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.

Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. 

The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”

Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”

The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
 

FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR

The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.

The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.

Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”

The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.

“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”

Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”

The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
 

Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone

Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.  

In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.

And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”

However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.

Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”

The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.

Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.

“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”

Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The American Diabetes Association now advises universal screening of people with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes for fatty liver disease and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.

Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. 

The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”

Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”

The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
 

FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR

The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.

The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.

Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”

The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.

“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”

Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”

The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
 

Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone

Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.  

In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.

And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”

However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.

Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”

The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.

Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.

“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”

Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The American Diabetes Association now advises universal screening of people with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes for fatty liver disease and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.

Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview. 

The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”

Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”

The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
 

FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR

The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.

The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.

Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”

The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.

“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”

Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”

The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
 

Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone

Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.  

In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.

And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”

However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.

Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”

The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.

Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.

“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”

Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eight-hour intermittent fasting had similar weight loss results to calorie counting in adults with obesity, a new study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine has found. The small, unblinded study compared weight loss in 77 participants who either intermittently fasted, adhered to a calorie-restricted diet, or were in a control group with no eating restrictions.

Compared with the control group, absolute weight loss for people in the intermittent fasting group was about 4.6 kg (10 lb), compared with 5.4 kg (12 lb) for those in the calorie-restriction group, after 12 months, with no significant difference between the intervention groups.

Intermittent fasting, or time-restricted eating, relies on the idea that the time you eat is more important for weight loss than what or how much you eat. The term is a catch-all for eating patterns that could include several full days of fasting per week or time-restricted eating during the day.

The effect of having less time to eat is thought to lead to the consumption of fewer calories, thought to be the main reason the approach works. Indeed, this trial found the intermittent fasting group ate 425 fewer calories per day, compared with 405 fewer calories per day in the calorie-restricted group. 

“Time-restricted eating is undoubtedly an attractive approach to weight loss in that it does not require the purchase of expensive food products, allows persons to continue consuming familiar foods, and omits complicated calorie tracking,” Shuhao Lin, RD, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues write.

During the trial, participants were in a weight-loss phase for 6 months. The intermittent fasting group could eat anything they wanted to between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m., and didn’t have to count calories. The later time window is on par with the eating pattern of most people in the United States who fast.

The calorie-restriction group had to cut 25% of their daily calorie intake based on their total energy expenditure. They were also told to fill half of every plate with fruits or vegetables, and consume about half their energy as carbohydrates, 30% as fat, and 20% as protein.

The weight-loss phase was followed by a 6-month weight-maintenance phase. During this phase, the window for eating was extended from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the intermittent fasting group, and the calorie-restriction group was told to match their energy needs, which overall, had reduced by about 15%, compared with baseline.

Most participants were women with a mean body weight of about 100 kg (220 pounds) at baseline.

Both the time-restricted eating and calorie-restriction groups regularly met with dietitians, which the authors of an accompanying editorial say could have made the intermittent fasting more effective than in previous trials.

An earlier, shorter trial found about 0.9 kg (2 lb) weight loss after 12 weeks of adhering to a similar eating window, a more modest result, compared with the 4 kg (9 lb) weight loss at 6 months in this trial.

“The difference in outcomes between these two trials is likely attributable to differences in dietary counseling,” write the editorialists, Adam Gilden, MD, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, from University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Previous studies of intermittent fasting have been short and showed similar findings, compared with a calorie-restricted diet.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Eight-hour intermittent fasting had similar weight loss results to calorie counting in adults with obesity, a new study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine has found. The small, unblinded study compared weight loss in 77 participants who either intermittently fasted, adhered to a calorie-restricted diet, or were in a control group with no eating restrictions.

Compared with the control group, absolute weight loss for people in the intermittent fasting group was about 4.6 kg (10 lb), compared with 5.4 kg (12 lb) for those in the calorie-restriction group, after 12 months, with no significant difference between the intervention groups.

Intermittent fasting, or time-restricted eating, relies on the idea that the time you eat is more important for weight loss than what or how much you eat. The term is a catch-all for eating patterns that could include several full days of fasting per week or time-restricted eating during the day.

The effect of having less time to eat is thought to lead to the consumption of fewer calories, thought to be the main reason the approach works. Indeed, this trial found the intermittent fasting group ate 425 fewer calories per day, compared with 405 fewer calories per day in the calorie-restricted group. 

“Time-restricted eating is undoubtedly an attractive approach to weight loss in that it does not require the purchase of expensive food products, allows persons to continue consuming familiar foods, and omits complicated calorie tracking,” Shuhao Lin, RD, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues write.

During the trial, participants were in a weight-loss phase for 6 months. The intermittent fasting group could eat anything they wanted to between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m., and didn’t have to count calories. The later time window is on par with the eating pattern of most people in the United States who fast.

The calorie-restriction group had to cut 25% of their daily calorie intake based on their total energy expenditure. They were also told to fill half of every plate with fruits or vegetables, and consume about half their energy as carbohydrates, 30% as fat, and 20% as protein.

The weight-loss phase was followed by a 6-month weight-maintenance phase. During this phase, the window for eating was extended from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the intermittent fasting group, and the calorie-restriction group was told to match their energy needs, which overall, had reduced by about 15%, compared with baseline.

Most participants were women with a mean body weight of about 100 kg (220 pounds) at baseline.

Both the time-restricted eating and calorie-restriction groups regularly met with dietitians, which the authors of an accompanying editorial say could have made the intermittent fasting more effective than in previous trials.

An earlier, shorter trial found about 0.9 kg (2 lb) weight loss after 12 weeks of adhering to a similar eating window, a more modest result, compared with the 4 kg (9 lb) weight loss at 6 months in this trial.

“The difference in outcomes between these two trials is likely attributable to differences in dietary counseling,” write the editorialists, Adam Gilden, MD, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, from University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Previous studies of intermittent fasting have been short and showed similar findings, compared with a calorie-restricted diet.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

Eight-hour intermittent fasting had similar weight loss results to calorie counting in adults with obesity, a new study published online in Annals of Internal Medicine has found. The small, unblinded study compared weight loss in 77 participants who either intermittently fasted, adhered to a calorie-restricted diet, or were in a control group with no eating restrictions.

Compared with the control group, absolute weight loss for people in the intermittent fasting group was about 4.6 kg (10 lb), compared with 5.4 kg (12 lb) for those in the calorie-restriction group, after 12 months, with no significant difference between the intervention groups.

Intermittent fasting, or time-restricted eating, relies on the idea that the time you eat is more important for weight loss than what or how much you eat. The term is a catch-all for eating patterns that could include several full days of fasting per week or time-restricted eating during the day.

The effect of having less time to eat is thought to lead to the consumption of fewer calories, thought to be the main reason the approach works. Indeed, this trial found the intermittent fasting group ate 425 fewer calories per day, compared with 405 fewer calories per day in the calorie-restricted group. 

“Time-restricted eating is undoubtedly an attractive approach to weight loss in that it does not require the purchase of expensive food products, allows persons to continue consuming familiar foods, and omits complicated calorie tracking,” Shuhao Lin, RD, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues write.

During the trial, participants were in a weight-loss phase for 6 months. The intermittent fasting group could eat anything they wanted to between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m., and didn’t have to count calories. The later time window is on par with the eating pattern of most people in the United States who fast.

The calorie-restriction group had to cut 25% of their daily calorie intake based on their total energy expenditure. They were also told to fill half of every plate with fruits or vegetables, and consume about half their energy as carbohydrates, 30% as fat, and 20% as protein.

The weight-loss phase was followed by a 6-month weight-maintenance phase. During this phase, the window for eating was extended from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the intermittent fasting group, and the calorie-restriction group was told to match their energy needs, which overall, had reduced by about 15%, compared with baseline.

Most participants were women with a mean body weight of about 100 kg (220 pounds) at baseline.

Both the time-restricted eating and calorie-restriction groups regularly met with dietitians, which the authors of an accompanying editorial say could have made the intermittent fasting more effective than in previous trials.

An earlier, shorter trial found about 0.9 kg (2 lb) weight loss after 12 weeks of adhering to a similar eating window, a more modest result, compared with the 4 kg (9 lb) weight loss at 6 months in this trial.

“The difference in outcomes between these two trials is likely attributable to differences in dietary counseling,” write the editorialists, Adam Gilden, MD, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, from University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Previous studies of intermittent fasting have been short and showed similar findings, compared with a calorie-restricted diet.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

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

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Today I am going to tell you the single best question you can ask any doctor, the one that has saved my butt countless times throughout my career, the one that every attending physician should be asking every intern and resident when they present a new case. That question: “What else could this be?”

I know, I know – “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.” I get it. But sometimes we get so good at our jobs, so good at recognizing horses, that we stop asking ourselves about zebras at all. You see this in a phenomenon known as “anchoring bias” where physicians, when presented with a diagnosis, tend to latch on to that diagnosis based on the first piece of information given, paying attention to data that support it and ignoring data that point in other directions.

That special question: “What else could this be?”, breaks through that barrier. It forces you, the medical team, everyone, to go through the exercise of real, old-fashioned differential diagnosis. And I promise that if you do this enough, at some point it will save someone’s life.

Though the concept of anchoring bias in medicine is broadly understood, it hasn’t been broadly studied until now, with this study appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Here’s the setup.

The authors hypothesized that there would be substantial anchoring bias when patients with heart failure presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath if the triage “visit reason” section mentioned HF. We’re talking about the subtle difference between the following:

• Visit reason: Shortness of breath
• Visit reason: Shortness of breath/HF

People with HF can be short of breath for lots of reasons. HF exacerbation comes immediately to mind and it should. But there are obviously lots of answers to that “What else could this be?” question: pneumonia, pneumothorax, heart attack, COPD, and, of course, pulmonary embolism (PE).

The authors leveraged the nationwide VA database, allowing them to examine data from over 100,000 patients presenting to various VA EDs with shortness of breath. They then looked for particular tests – D-dimer, CT chest with contrast, V/Q scan, lower-extremity Doppler — that would suggest that the doctor was thinking about PE. The question, then, is whether mentioning HF in that little “visit reason” section would influence the likelihood of testing for PE.

I know what you’re thinking: Not everyone who is short of breath needs an evaluation for PE. And the authors did a nice job accounting for a variety of factors that might predict a PE workup: malignancy, recent surgery, elevated heart rate, low oxygen saturation, etc. Of course, some of those same factors might predict whether that triage nurse will write HF in the visit reason section. All of these things need to be accounted for statistically, and were, but – the unofficial Impact Factor motto reminds us that “there are always more confounders.”

But let’s dig into the results. I’m going to give you the raw numbers first. There were 4,392 people with HF whose visit reason section, in addition to noting shortness of breath, explicitly mentioned HF. Of those, 360 had PE testing and two had a PE diagnosed during that ED visit. So that’s around an 8% testing rate and a 0.5% hit rate for testing. But 43 people, presumably not tested in the ED, had a PE diagnosed within the next 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were present at the ED visit, that means the ED missed 95% of the PEs in the group with that HF label attached to them.

Let’s do the same thing for those whose visit reason just said “shortness of breath.”

Of the 103,627 people in that category, 13,886 were tested for PE and 231 of those tested positive. So that is an overall testing rate of around 13% and a hit rate of 1.7%. And 1,081 of these people had a PE diagnosed within 30 days. Assuming that those PEs were actually present at the ED visit, the docs missed 79% of them.

There’s one other thing to notice from the data: The overall PE rate (diagnosed by 30 days) was basically the same in both groups. That HF label does not really flag a group at lower risk for PE.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions here, including that all PEs that were actually there in the ED got caught within 30 days, but the numbers do paint a picture. In this unadjusted analysis, it seems that the HF label leads to less testing and more missed PEs. Classic anchoring bias.

The adjusted analysis, accounting for all those PE risk factors, really didn’t change these results. You get nearly the same numbers and thus nearly the same conclusions.

Now, the main missing piece of this puzzle is in the mind of the clinician. We don’t know whether they didn’t consider PE or whether they considered PE but thought it unlikely. And in the end, it’s clear that the vast majority of people in this study did not have PE (though I suspect not all had a simple HF exacerbation). But this type of analysis is useful not only for the empiric evidence of the clinical impact of anchoring bias but because of the fact that it reminds us all to ask that all-important question: What else could this be?

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Introduction

Historically, the role of endoscopy in hepatology has been limited to intraluminal and bile duct interventions, primarily for the management of varices and biliary strictures. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has broadened the range of endoscopic treatment by enabling transluminal access to the liver parenchyma and associated vasculature. In this review, we will address recent advances in the expanding field of endohepatology.

Endoscopic-ultrasound guided liver biopsy

Liver biopsies are a critical tool in the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with liver disease. Conventional approaches for obtaining liver tissue have been most commonly through the percutaneous or vascular approaches. In 2007, the first EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) was described.¹ EUS-LB is performed by advancing a line-array echoendoscope to the duodenal bulb to access the right lobe of the liver or proximal stomach to sample the left lobe. Doppler is first used to identify a pathway with few intervening vessels. Then a 19G or 20G needle is passed and slowly withdrawn to capture tissue (Figure 1). Careful evaluation with Doppler ultrasound to evaluate for bleeding is recommended after EUS-LB and if persistent, a small amount of clot may be reinjected as a blood or “Chang” patch akin to technique to control oozing postlumbar puncture.²

Jennifer Phan, MD

While large prospective studies are needed to compare the methods, it appears that specimen adequacy acquired via EUS-LB are comparable to percutaneous and transjugular approaches.^3-5 Utilization of specific needle types and suction may optimize samples. Namely, 19G needles may provide better samples than smaller sizes and contemporary fine-needle biopsy needles with Franseen tips are superior to conventional spring-loaded cutting needles and fork tip needles.^6-8 The use of dry suction has been shown to increase the yield of tissue, but at the expense of increased bloodiness. Wet suction, which involves the presence of fluid, rather than air, in the needle lumen to lubricate and improve transmission of negative pressure to the needle tip, is the preferred technique for EUS-LB given improvement in the likelihood of intact liver biopsy cores and increased specimen adequacy.⁹

There are several advantages to EUS-LB (Table 1). When compared with percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) and transjugular liver biopsy (TJ-LB), EUS-LB is uniquely able to access both liver lobes in a single setting, which minimizes sampling error.³ EUS-LB may also have an advantage in sampling focal liver lesions given the close proximity of the transducer to the liver.¹⁰ Another advantage over PC-LB is that EUS-LB can be performed in patients with a large body habitus. Additionally, EUS-LB is better tolerated than PC-LB, with less postprocedure pain and shorter postprocedure monitoring time.^4,5
 

Dr. James Buxbaum and Dr. Aileen Bui

Rates of adverse events appear to be similar between the three methods. Similar to PC-LB, EUS-LB requires capsular puncture, which can lead to intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Therefore, TJ-LB is preferred in patients with significant coagulopathy. While small ascites is not an absolute contraindication for EUS-LB, large ascites can obscure a safe window from the proximal stomach or duodenum to the liver, and thus TJLB is also preferred in these patients.¹¹ Given its relative novelty and logistic challenges, other disadvantages of EUS-LB include limited provider availability and increased cost, especially compared with PC-LB. The most significant limitation is that it requires moderate or deep sedation, as opposed to local anesthetics. However, if there is another indication for endoscopy (that is, variceal screening), then “one-stop shop” procedures including EUS-LB may be more convenient and cost-effective than traditional methods. Nevertheless, rigorous comparative studies are needed.
 

EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement

The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) greater than or equal to 10 is a potent predictor of decompensation. There is growing evidence to support the use of beta-blockers to mitigate this risk.¹² Therefore, early identification of patients with CSPH has important diagnostic and therapeutic implications. The current gold standard for diagnosing CSPH is with wedged HVPG measurements performed by interventional radiology.

Since its introduction in 2016, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) has emerged as an alternative to wedged HVPG.^13,14 Using a linear echoendoscope, the portal vein is directly accessed with a 25G fine-needle aspiration needle, and three direct measurements are taken using a compact manometer to determine the mean pressure. The hepatic vein, or less commonly the inferior vena cava, pressure is also measured. The direct measurement of portal pressure provides a significant advantage of EUS-PPG over HVPG in patients with presinusoidal and prehepatic portal hypertension. Wedged HVPG, which utilizes the difference between the wedged and free hepatic venous pressure to indirectly estimate the portal venous pressure gradient, yields erroneously low gradients in patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension.¹⁵ An additional advantage of EUS-PPG is that it obviates the need for a central venous line placement, which is associated with thrombosis and, in rare cases, air embolus.¹⁶

Observational studies indicate that EUS-PPG has a high degree of consistency with HVPG measurements and a strong correlation between other clinical findings of portal hyper-tension including esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.^13,14 Nevertheless, EUS-PPG is performed under moderate or deep sedation which may impact HVPG measurements.¹⁷ In addition, the real-world application of EUS-PPG measurement on clinical care is undefined, but it is the topic of an ongoing clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov – NCT05357599).
 

EUS-guided interventions of gastric varices

Compared with esophageal varices, current approaches to the treatment and prophylaxis of gastric varices are more controversial.¹⁸ The most common approach to bleeding gastric varices in the United States is the placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Nevertheless, in addition to risks associated with central venous line placement, 5%-35% of individuals develop hepatic encephalopathy after TIPS and ischemic acute liver failure can occur in rare situations.¹⁹ Cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue injection is the recommended first-line endoscopic therapy for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, but use has not been widely adopted in the United States because of a lack of an approved Food and Drug Administration CYA formulation, limited expertise, and risk of serious complications. In particular systemic embolization may result in pulmonary or cerebral infarct.^12,18 EUS-guided interventions have been developed to mitigate these safety concerns. EUS-guided coil embolization can be performed, either alone or in combination with CYA injection.²⁰ In the latter approach it acts as a scaffold to prevent migration of the glue bolus. Doppler assessment enables direct visualization of the gastric varix for identification of feeder vessels, more controlled deployment of hemostatic agents, and real-time confirmation of varix obliteration. Fluoroscopy can be used as an adjunct.

EUS-guided interventions in the management of gastric varices appear to be effective and superior to CYA injection under direct endoscopic visualization with improved likelihood of obliteration and lower rebleeding rates, without increase in adverse events.²¹ Additionally, EUS-guided combination therapy improves technical outcomes and reduces adverse events relative to EUS-guided coil or EUS-guided glue injection therapy alone.^21-23 Nevertheless, large-scale prospective trials are needed to determine whether EUS-guided interventions should be considered over TIPS. The role of EUS-guided interventions as primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding from large gastric varices also requires additional study.²⁴

Future directions

Endohepatology has shown promise in its ability to consolidate the evaluation and treatment of patients with liver disease with the goal of optimizing care and increasing efficiency. In addition to new endoscopic procedures to optimize liver biopsy, portal pressure measurement, and gastric variceal treatment, there are a number of emerging technologies including EUS-guided liver elastography, portal venous sampling, liver tumor chemoembolization, and intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.²⁵ However, the practice of endohepatology faces a number of challenges before widespread adoption, including limited provider expertise and institutional availability. Additionally, more robust, multicenter outcomes and cost-effective analyses comparing these novel procedures with traditional approaches are needed to define their clinical impact.

Dr. Bui is a fellow in gastroenterology in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Buxbaum is associate professor of medicine (clinical scholar) in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California. Dr. Buxbaum is a consultant for Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Olympus. Dr. Bui has no disclosures.

References

1. Mathew A. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(10):2354-5.

2. Sowa P et al. VideoGIE. 2021;6(11):487-8.

3. Pineda JJ et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(2):360-5.

4. Ali AH et al. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(2):157-67.

5. Shuja A et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(6):826-30.

6. Schulman AR et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):419-26.

7. DeWitt J et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E471-8.

8. Aggarwal SN et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1133-8.

9. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88(6):919-25.

10. Lee YN et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(7):1161-6.

11. Kalambokis G et al. J Hepatol. 2007;47(2):284-94.

12. de Franchis R et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(4):959-74.

13. Choi AY et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37(7):1373-9.

14. Zhang W et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(3):565-72.

15. Seijo S et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(10):855-60.

16. Vesely TM. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(11):1291-5.

17. Reverter E et al. Liver Int. 2014;34(1):16-25.

18. Henry Z et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(6):1098-107.e1091.

19. Ripamonti R et al. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2006;23(2):165-76.

20. Rengstorff DS and Binmoeller KF. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(4):553-8.

21. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):259-67.

22. Robles-Medranda C et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):268-75.

23. McCarty TR et al. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(1):6-15.

24. Kouanda A et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):291-6.

25. Bazarbashi AN et al. 2022;24(1):98-107.

Introduction

Historically, the role of endoscopy in hepatology has been limited to intraluminal and bile duct interventions, primarily for the management of varices and biliary strictures. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has broadened the range of endoscopic treatment by enabling transluminal access to the liver parenchyma and associated vasculature. In this review, we will address recent advances in the expanding field of endohepatology.

Endoscopic-ultrasound guided liver biopsy

Liver biopsies are a critical tool in the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with liver disease. Conventional approaches for obtaining liver tissue have been most commonly through the percutaneous or vascular approaches. In 2007, the first EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) was described.¹ EUS-LB is performed by advancing a line-array echoendoscope to the duodenal bulb to access the right lobe of the liver or proximal stomach to sample the left lobe. Doppler is first used to identify a pathway with few intervening vessels. Then a 19G or 20G needle is passed and slowly withdrawn to capture tissue (Figure 1). Careful evaluation with Doppler ultrasound to evaluate for bleeding is recommended after EUS-LB and if persistent, a small amount of clot may be reinjected as a blood or “Chang” patch akin to technique to control oozing postlumbar puncture.²

Jennifer Phan, MD

While large prospective studies are needed to compare the methods, it appears that specimen adequacy acquired via EUS-LB are comparable to percutaneous and transjugular approaches.^3-5 Utilization of specific needle types and suction may optimize samples. Namely, 19G needles may provide better samples than smaller sizes and contemporary fine-needle biopsy needles with Franseen tips are superior to conventional spring-loaded cutting needles and fork tip needles.^6-8 The use of dry suction has been shown to increase the yield of tissue, but at the expense of increased bloodiness. Wet suction, which involves the presence of fluid, rather than air, in the needle lumen to lubricate and improve transmission of negative pressure to the needle tip, is the preferred technique for EUS-LB given improvement in the likelihood of intact liver biopsy cores and increased specimen adequacy.⁹

There are several advantages to EUS-LB (Table 1). When compared with percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) and transjugular liver biopsy (TJ-LB), EUS-LB is uniquely able to access both liver lobes in a single setting, which minimizes sampling error.³ EUS-LB may also have an advantage in sampling focal liver lesions given the close proximity of the transducer to the liver.¹⁰ Another advantage over PC-LB is that EUS-LB can be performed in patients with a large body habitus. Additionally, EUS-LB is better tolerated than PC-LB, with less postprocedure pain and shorter postprocedure monitoring time.^4,5
 

Dr. James Buxbaum and Dr. Aileen Bui

Rates of adverse events appear to be similar between the three methods. Similar to PC-LB, EUS-LB requires capsular puncture, which can lead to intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Therefore, TJ-LB is preferred in patients with significant coagulopathy. While small ascites is not an absolute contraindication for EUS-LB, large ascites can obscure a safe window from the proximal stomach or duodenum to the liver, and thus TJLB is also preferred in these patients.¹¹ Given its relative novelty and logistic challenges, other disadvantages of EUS-LB include limited provider availability and increased cost, especially compared with PC-LB. The most significant limitation is that it requires moderate or deep sedation, as opposed to local anesthetics. However, if there is another indication for endoscopy (that is, variceal screening), then “one-stop shop” procedures including EUS-LB may be more convenient and cost-effective than traditional methods. Nevertheless, rigorous comparative studies are needed.
 

EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement

The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) greater than or equal to 10 is a potent predictor of decompensation. There is growing evidence to support the use of beta-blockers to mitigate this risk.¹² Therefore, early identification of patients with CSPH has important diagnostic and therapeutic implications. The current gold standard for diagnosing CSPH is with wedged HVPG measurements performed by interventional radiology.

Since its introduction in 2016, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) has emerged as an alternative to wedged HVPG.^13,14 Using a linear echoendoscope, the portal vein is directly accessed with a 25G fine-needle aspiration needle, and three direct measurements are taken using a compact manometer to determine the mean pressure. The hepatic vein, or less commonly the inferior vena cava, pressure is also measured. The direct measurement of portal pressure provides a significant advantage of EUS-PPG over HVPG in patients with presinusoidal and prehepatic portal hypertension. Wedged HVPG, which utilizes the difference between the wedged and free hepatic venous pressure to indirectly estimate the portal venous pressure gradient, yields erroneously low gradients in patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension.¹⁵ An additional advantage of EUS-PPG is that it obviates the need for a central venous line placement, which is associated with thrombosis and, in rare cases, air embolus.¹⁶

Observational studies indicate that EUS-PPG has a high degree of consistency with HVPG measurements and a strong correlation between other clinical findings of portal hyper-tension including esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.^13,14 Nevertheless, EUS-PPG is performed under moderate or deep sedation which may impact HVPG measurements.¹⁷ In addition, the real-world application of EUS-PPG measurement on clinical care is undefined, but it is the topic of an ongoing clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov – NCT05357599).
 

EUS-guided interventions of gastric varices

Compared with esophageal varices, current approaches to the treatment and prophylaxis of gastric varices are more controversial.¹⁸ The most common approach to bleeding gastric varices in the United States is the placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Nevertheless, in addition to risks associated with central venous line placement, 5%-35% of individuals develop hepatic encephalopathy after TIPS and ischemic acute liver failure can occur in rare situations.¹⁹ Cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue injection is the recommended first-line endoscopic therapy for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, but use has not been widely adopted in the United States because of a lack of an approved Food and Drug Administration CYA formulation, limited expertise, and risk of serious complications. In particular systemic embolization may result in pulmonary or cerebral infarct.^12,18 EUS-guided interventions have been developed to mitigate these safety concerns. EUS-guided coil embolization can be performed, either alone or in combination with CYA injection.²⁰ In the latter approach it acts as a scaffold to prevent migration of the glue bolus. Doppler assessment enables direct visualization of the gastric varix for identification of feeder vessels, more controlled deployment of hemostatic agents, and real-time confirmation of varix obliteration. Fluoroscopy can be used as an adjunct.

EUS-guided interventions in the management of gastric varices appear to be effective and superior to CYA injection under direct endoscopic visualization with improved likelihood of obliteration and lower rebleeding rates, without increase in adverse events.²¹ Additionally, EUS-guided combination therapy improves technical outcomes and reduces adverse events relative to EUS-guided coil or EUS-guided glue injection therapy alone.^21-23 Nevertheless, large-scale prospective trials are needed to determine whether EUS-guided interventions should be considered over TIPS. The role of EUS-guided interventions as primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding from large gastric varices also requires additional study.²⁴

Future directions

Endohepatology has shown promise in its ability to consolidate the evaluation and treatment of patients with liver disease with the goal of optimizing care and increasing efficiency. In addition to new endoscopic procedures to optimize liver biopsy, portal pressure measurement, and gastric variceal treatment, there are a number of emerging technologies including EUS-guided liver elastography, portal venous sampling, liver tumor chemoembolization, and intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.²⁵ However, the practice of endohepatology faces a number of challenges before widespread adoption, including limited provider expertise and institutional availability. Additionally, more robust, multicenter outcomes and cost-effective analyses comparing these novel procedures with traditional approaches are needed to define their clinical impact.

Dr. Bui is a fellow in gastroenterology in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Buxbaum is associate professor of medicine (clinical scholar) in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California. Dr. Buxbaum is a consultant for Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Olympus. Dr. Bui has no disclosures.

References

1. Mathew A. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(10):2354-5.

2. Sowa P et al. VideoGIE. 2021;6(11):487-8.

3. Pineda JJ et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(2):360-5.

4. Ali AH et al. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(2):157-67.

5. Shuja A et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(6):826-30.

6. Schulman AR et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):419-26.

7. DeWitt J et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E471-8.

8. Aggarwal SN et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1133-8.

9. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88(6):919-25.

10. Lee YN et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(7):1161-6.

11. Kalambokis G et al. J Hepatol. 2007;47(2):284-94.

12. de Franchis R et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(4):959-74.

13. Choi AY et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37(7):1373-9.

14. Zhang W et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(3):565-72.

15. Seijo S et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(10):855-60.

16. Vesely TM. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(11):1291-5.

17. Reverter E et al. Liver Int. 2014;34(1):16-25.

18. Henry Z et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(6):1098-107.e1091.

19. Ripamonti R et al. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2006;23(2):165-76.

20. Rengstorff DS and Binmoeller KF. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(4):553-8.

21. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):259-67.

22. Robles-Medranda C et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):268-75.

23. McCarty TR et al. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(1):6-15.

24. Kouanda A et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):291-6.

25. Bazarbashi AN et al. 2022;24(1):98-107.

Introduction

Historically, the role of endoscopy in hepatology has been limited to intraluminal and bile duct interventions, primarily for the management of varices and biliary strictures. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has broadened the range of endoscopic treatment by enabling transluminal access to the liver parenchyma and associated vasculature. In this review, we will address recent advances in the expanding field of endohepatology.

Endoscopic-ultrasound guided liver biopsy

Liver biopsies are a critical tool in the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with liver disease. Conventional approaches for obtaining liver tissue have been most commonly through the percutaneous or vascular approaches. In 2007, the first EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) was described.¹ EUS-LB is performed by advancing a line-array echoendoscope to the duodenal bulb to access the right lobe of the liver or proximal stomach to sample the left lobe. Doppler is first used to identify a pathway with few intervening vessels. Then a 19G or 20G needle is passed and slowly withdrawn to capture tissue (Figure 1). Careful evaluation with Doppler ultrasound to evaluate for bleeding is recommended after EUS-LB and if persistent, a small amount of clot may be reinjected as a blood or “Chang” patch akin to technique to control oozing postlumbar puncture.²

Jennifer Phan, MD

While large prospective studies are needed to compare the methods, it appears that specimen adequacy acquired via EUS-LB are comparable to percutaneous and transjugular approaches.^3-5 Utilization of specific needle types and suction may optimize samples. Namely, 19G needles may provide better samples than smaller sizes and contemporary fine-needle biopsy needles with Franseen tips are superior to conventional spring-loaded cutting needles and fork tip needles.^6-8 The use of dry suction has been shown to increase the yield of tissue, but at the expense of increased bloodiness. Wet suction, which involves the presence of fluid, rather than air, in the needle lumen to lubricate and improve transmission of negative pressure to the needle tip, is the preferred technique for EUS-LB given improvement in the likelihood of intact liver biopsy cores and increased specimen adequacy.⁹

There are several advantages to EUS-LB (Table 1). When compared with percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) and transjugular liver biopsy (TJ-LB), EUS-LB is uniquely able to access both liver lobes in a single setting, which minimizes sampling error.³ EUS-LB may also have an advantage in sampling focal liver lesions given the close proximity of the transducer to the liver.¹⁰ Another advantage over PC-LB is that EUS-LB can be performed in patients with a large body habitus. Additionally, EUS-LB is better tolerated than PC-LB, with less postprocedure pain and shorter postprocedure monitoring time.^4,5
 

Dr. James Buxbaum and Dr. Aileen Bui

Rates of adverse events appear to be similar between the three methods. Similar to PC-LB, EUS-LB requires capsular puncture, which can lead to intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Therefore, TJ-LB is preferred in patients with significant coagulopathy. While small ascites is not an absolute contraindication for EUS-LB, large ascites can obscure a safe window from the proximal stomach or duodenum to the liver, and thus TJLB is also preferred in these patients.¹¹ Given its relative novelty and logistic challenges, other disadvantages of EUS-LB include limited provider availability and increased cost, especially compared with PC-LB. The most significant limitation is that it requires moderate or deep sedation, as opposed to local anesthetics. However, if there is another indication for endoscopy (that is, variceal screening), then “one-stop shop” procedures including EUS-LB may be more convenient and cost-effective than traditional methods. Nevertheless, rigorous comparative studies are needed.
 

EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement

The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), defined as hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) greater than or equal to 10 is a potent predictor of decompensation. There is growing evidence to support the use of beta-blockers to mitigate this risk.¹² Therefore, early identification of patients with CSPH has important diagnostic and therapeutic implications. The current gold standard for diagnosing CSPH is with wedged HVPG measurements performed by interventional radiology.

Since its introduction in 2016, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) has emerged as an alternative to wedged HVPG.^13,14 Using a linear echoendoscope, the portal vein is directly accessed with a 25G fine-needle aspiration needle, and three direct measurements are taken using a compact manometer to determine the mean pressure. The hepatic vein, or less commonly the inferior vena cava, pressure is also measured. The direct measurement of portal pressure provides a significant advantage of EUS-PPG over HVPG in patients with presinusoidal and prehepatic portal hypertension. Wedged HVPG, which utilizes the difference between the wedged and free hepatic venous pressure to indirectly estimate the portal venous pressure gradient, yields erroneously low gradients in patients with noncirrhotic portal hypertension.¹⁵ An additional advantage of EUS-PPG is that it obviates the need for a central venous line placement, which is associated with thrombosis and, in rare cases, air embolus.¹⁶

Observational studies indicate that EUS-PPG has a high degree of consistency with HVPG measurements and a strong correlation between other clinical findings of portal hyper-tension including esophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.^13,14 Nevertheless, EUS-PPG is performed under moderate or deep sedation which may impact HVPG measurements.¹⁷ In addition, the real-world application of EUS-PPG measurement on clinical care is undefined, but it is the topic of an ongoing clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov – NCT05357599).
 

EUS-guided interventions of gastric varices

Compared with esophageal varices, current approaches to the treatment and prophylaxis of gastric varices are more controversial.¹⁸ The most common approach to bleeding gastric varices in the United States is the placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Nevertheless, in addition to risks associated with central venous line placement, 5%-35% of individuals develop hepatic encephalopathy after TIPS and ischemic acute liver failure can occur in rare situations.¹⁹ Cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue injection is the recommended first-line endoscopic therapy for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, but use has not been widely adopted in the United States because of a lack of an approved Food and Drug Administration CYA formulation, limited expertise, and risk of serious complications. In particular systemic embolization may result in pulmonary or cerebral infarct.^12,18 EUS-guided interventions have been developed to mitigate these safety concerns. EUS-guided coil embolization can be performed, either alone or in combination with CYA injection.²⁰ In the latter approach it acts as a scaffold to prevent migration of the glue bolus. Doppler assessment enables direct visualization of the gastric varix for identification of feeder vessels, more controlled deployment of hemostatic agents, and real-time confirmation of varix obliteration. Fluoroscopy can be used as an adjunct.

EUS-guided interventions in the management of gastric varices appear to be effective and superior to CYA injection under direct endoscopic visualization with improved likelihood of obliteration and lower rebleeding rates, without increase in adverse events.²¹ Additionally, EUS-guided combination therapy improves technical outcomes and reduces adverse events relative to EUS-guided coil or EUS-guided glue injection therapy alone.^21-23 Nevertheless, large-scale prospective trials are needed to determine whether EUS-guided interventions should be considered over TIPS. The role of EUS-guided interventions as primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding from large gastric varices also requires additional study.²⁴

Future directions

Endohepatology has shown promise in its ability to consolidate the evaluation and treatment of patients with liver disease with the goal of optimizing care and increasing efficiency. In addition to new endoscopic procedures to optimize liver biopsy, portal pressure measurement, and gastric variceal treatment, there are a number of emerging technologies including EUS-guided liver elastography, portal venous sampling, liver tumor chemoembolization, and intrahepatic portosystemic shunts.²⁵ However, the practice of endohepatology faces a number of challenges before widespread adoption, including limited provider expertise and institutional availability. Additionally, more robust, multicenter outcomes and cost-effective analyses comparing these novel procedures with traditional approaches are needed to define their clinical impact.

Dr. Bui is a fellow in gastroenterology in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Buxbaum is associate professor of medicine (clinical scholar) in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Southern California. Dr. Buxbaum is a consultant for Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Olympus. Dr. Bui has no disclosures.

References

1. Mathew A. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(10):2354-5.

2. Sowa P et al. VideoGIE. 2021;6(11):487-8.

3. Pineda JJ et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(2):360-5.

4. Ali AH et al. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(2):157-67.

5. Shuja A et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2019;51(6):826-30.

6. Schulman AR et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):419-26.

7. DeWitt J et al. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(5):E471-8.

8. Aggarwal SN et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(5):1133-8.

9. Mok SRS et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88(6):919-25.

10. Lee YN et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(7):1161-6.

11. Kalambokis G et al. J Hepatol. 2007;47(2):284-94.

12. de Franchis R et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(4):959-74.

13. Choi AY et al. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37(7):1373-9.

14. Zhang W et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(3):565-72.

15. Seijo S et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2012;44(10):855-60.

16. Vesely TM. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(11):1291-5.

17. Reverter E et al. Liver Int. 2014;34(1):16-25.

18. Henry Z et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(6):1098-107.e1091.

19. Ripamonti R et al. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2006;23(2):165-76.

20. Rengstorff DS and Binmoeller KF. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59(4):553-8.

21. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):259-67.

22. Robles-Medranda C et al. Endoscopy. 2020;52(4):268-75.

23. McCarty TR et al. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020;9(1):6-15.

24. Kouanda A et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):291-6.

25. Bazarbashi AN et al. 2022;24(1):98-107.

SAN DIEGO – New designer molecules that target weight loss via multiple mechanisms continue to raise the bar of how many pounds people with overweight or obesity can lose.

Retatrutide (Eli Lilly), an investigational agent that combines agonism to three key hormones that influence eating and metabolism into a single molecule, safely produced weight loss at levels never seen before in a pair of phase 2 studies that together randomized more than 600 people with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes.

Among 338 randomized people with overweight or obesity and no type 2 diabetes, 48 weeks of treatment with retatrutide at a 12-mg dose given by weekly subcutaneous injection (the highest dose tested) safely produced an average 24% drop from baseline bodyweight.

Among 281 randomized people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes, the same dose of retatrutide produced a nearly 17% cut in weight from baseline after 36 weeks of treatment.
 

Never before seen weight loss

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, who led the obesity study, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The average weight loss by study participants taking high-dose retatrutide in the two studies “is really impressive, way beyond my wildest dreams,” said Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, an obesity and diabetes researcher at University College Dublin, Ireland, who was not involved with the retatrutide studies.

And Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, called the results “stunning,” and added, “we are now witnessing the first triple-hormone combination being highly effective for not only weight loss but liver disease and diabetes.”

Joslin Diabetes Center

Adding glucagon agonism ups liver-fat clearance

“When you add glucagon activity,” one of the three agonist actions of retatrutide, “liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” said Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To my knowledge, no mono-agonist of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor [such as semaglutide or liraglutide] produces more than 50% clearance of liver fat,” added Dr. Kaplan.

The separate, randomized study of people with type 2 diabetes showed that in addition to producing an unprecedented average level of weight loss at the highest retatrutide dose, the agent also produced an average reduction from baseline levels of A1c of about 2 percentage points, an efficacy roughly comparable to maximum doses of the most potent GLP-1 mono-agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), as well as by tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly), a dual agonist for the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who presented the results from the type 2 diabetes study of retatrutide.

For the obesity study, people with a body mass index of 27-50 kg/m² and no diabetes were randomized to placebo or any of four retatrutide target dosages using specified dose-escalation protocols. Participants were an average of 48 years old, and by design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-related pattern. (Weight loss averaged about 2% among the 70 controls who received placebo.)
 

Twenty-six percent without diabetes lost at least 30% of body weight

Every person who escalated to receive the 8-mg or 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide lost at least 5% of their bodyweight after 48 weeks, 83% of those taking the 12-mg dose lost at least 15%, 63% of those on the 12-mg dose lost at least 20%, and 26% of those on the highest dose lost at least 30% of their starting bodyweight, reported Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The highest dose was also associated with an average 40% relative reduction in triglyceride levels from baseline and an average 22% relative drop in LDL cholesterol levels.

The results were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The incidence of serious adverse events with retatrutide was low, similar to the rate in those who received placebo, and showed no dose relationship.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, in as many as 16% of those on the highest dose; these were mild to moderate in severity and usually occurred during dose escalation. In general, adverse events were comparable to what is seen with a GLP-1 agonist or the dual agonist tirzepatide, Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

A1c normalization in 26% at the highest dose

A similar safety pattern occurred in the study of people with type 2 diabetes, which randomized people with an average A1c of 8.3% and an average BMI of 35.0 kg/m². After 36 weeks of treatment, the 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide led to normalization of A1c < 5.7% in 27% of people and A1c ≤ 6.5% in 77%.

“The number of people we were able to revert to a normal A1c was impressive,” said Dr. Rosenstock. These results were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

The additional findings on liver-fat mobilization in people without diabetes enrolled in the obesity study are notable because no agent currently has labeling from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication of reducing excess liver fat, said Dr. Kaplan.

The researchers measured liver fat at baseline and then during treatment using MRI.

“With the level of fat clearance from the liver that we see with retatrutide it is highly likely that we’ll also see improvements in liver fibrosis” in retatrutide-treated patients, Dr. Kaplan predicted.

Next up for retatrutide is testing in pivotal trials, including the TRIUMPH-3 trial that will enroll about 1,800 people with severe obesity and cardiovascular disease, with findings expected toward the end of 2025.

The retatrutide studies are sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Le Roux have reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly as well as other companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – New designer molecules that target weight loss via multiple mechanisms continue to raise the bar of how many pounds people with overweight or obesity can lose.

Retatrutide (Eli Lilly), an investigational agent that combines agonism to three key hormones that influence eating and metabolism into a single molecule, safely produced weight loss at levels never seen before in a pair of phase 2 studies that together randomized more than 600 people with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes.

Among 338 randomized people with overweight or obesity and no type 2 diabetes, 48 weeks of treatment with retatrutide at a 12-mg dose given by weekly subcutaneous injection (the highest dose tested) safely produced an average 24% drop from baseline bodyweight.

Among 281 randomized people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes, the same dose of retatrutide produced a nearly 17% cut in weight from baseline after 36 weeks of treatment.
 

Never before seen weight loss

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, who led the obesity study, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The average weight loss by study participants taking high-dose retatrutide in the two studies “is really impressive, way beyond my wildest dreams,” said Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, an obesity and diabetes researcher at University College Dublin, Ireland, who was not involved with the retatrutide studies.

And Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, called the results “stunning,” and added, “we are now witnessing the first triple-hormone combination being highly effective for not only weight loss but liver disease and diabetes.”

Joslin Diabetes Center

Adding glucagon agonism ups liver-fat clearance

“When you add glucagon activity,” one of the three agonist actions of retatrutide, “liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” said Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To my knowledge, no mono-agonist of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor [such as semaglutide or liraglutide] produces more than 50% clearance of liver fat,” added Dr. Kaplan.

The separate, randomized study of people with type 2 diabetes showed that in addition to producing an unprecedented average level of weight loss at the highest retatrutide dose, the agent also produced an average reduction from baseline levels of A1c of about 2 percentage points, an efficacy roughly comparable to maximum doses of the most potent GLP-1 mono-agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), as well as by tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly), a dual agonist for the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who presented the results from the type 2 diabetes study of retatrutide.

For the obesity study, people with a body mass index of 27-50 kg/m² and no diabetes were randomized to placebo or any of four retatrutide target dosages using specified dose-escalation protocols. Participants were an average of 48 years old, and by design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-related pattern. (Weight loss averaged about 2% among the 70 controls who received placebo.)
 

Twenty-six percent without diabetes lost at least 30% of body weight

Every person who escalated to receive the 8-mg or 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide lost at least 5% of their bodyweight after 48 weeks, 83% of those taking the 12-mg dose lost at least 15%, 63% of those on the 12-mg dose lost at least 20%, and 26% of those on the highest dose lost at least 30% of their starting bodyweight, reported Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The highest dose was also associated with an average 40% relative reduction in triglyceride levels from baseline and an average 22% relative drop in LDL cholesterol levels.

The results were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The incidence of serious adverse events with retatrutide was low, similar to the rate in those who received placebo, and showed no dose relationship.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, in as many as 16% of those on the highest dose; these were mild to moderate in severity and usually occurred during dose escalation. In general, adverse events were comparable to what is seen with a GLP-1 agonist or the dual agonist tirzepatide, Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

A1c normalization in 26% at the highest dose

A similar safety pattern occurred in the study of people with type 2 diabetes, which randomized people with an average A1c of 8.3% and an average BMI of 35.0 kg/m². After 36 weeks of treatment, the 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide led to normalization of A1c < 5.7% in 27% of people and A1c ≤ 6.5% in 77%.

“The number of people we were able to revert to a normal A1c was impressive,” said Dr. Rosenstock. These results were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

The additional findings on liver-fat mobilization in people without diabetes enrolled in the obesity study are notable because no agent currently has labeling from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication of reducing excess liver fat, said Dr. Kaplan.

The researchers measured liver fat at baseline and then during treatment using MRI.

“With the level of fat clearance from the liver that we see with retatrutide it is highly likely that we’ll also see improvements in liver fibrosis” in retatrutide-treated patients, Dr. Kaplan predicted.

Next up for retatrutide is testing in pivotal trials, including the TRIUMPH-3 trial that will enroll about 1,800 people with severe obesity and cardiovascular disease, with findings expected toward the end of 2025.

The retatrutide studies are sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Le Roux have reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly as well as other companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – New designer molecules that target weight loss via multiple mechanisms continue to raise the bar of how many pounds people with overweight or obesity can lose.

Retatrutide (Eli Lilly), an investigational agent that combines agonism to three key hormones that influence eating and metabolism into a single molecule, safely produced weight loss at levels never seen before in a pair of phase 2 studies that together randomized more than 600 people with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes.

Among 338 randomized people with overweight or obesity and no type 2 diabetes, 48 weeks of treatment with retatrutide at a 12-mg dose given by weekly subcutaneous injection (the highest dose tested) safely produced an average 24% drop from baseline bodyweight.

Among 281 randomized people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes, the same dose of retatrutide produced a nearly 17% cut in weight from baseline after 36 weeks of treatment.
 

Never before seen weight loss

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, who led the obesity study, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The average weight loss by study participants taking high-dose retatrutide in the two studies “is really impressive, way beyond my wildest dreams,” said Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, an obesity and diabetes researcher at University College Dublin, Ireland, who was not involved with the retatrutide studies.

And Robert A. Gabbay, MD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, called the results “stunning,” and added, “we are now witnessing the first triple-hormone combination being highly effective for not only weight loss but liver disease and diabetes.”

Joslin Diabetes Center

Adding glucagon agonism ups liver-fat clearance

“When you add glucagon activity,” one of the three agonist actions of retatrutide, “liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” said Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To my knowledge, no mono-agonist of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor [such as semaglutide or liraglutide] produces more than 50% clearance of liver fat,” added Dr. Kaplan.

The separate, randomized study of people with type 2 diabetes showed that in addition to producing an unprecedented average level of weight loss at the highest retatrutide dose, the agent also produced an average reduction from baseline levels of A1c of about 2 percentage points, an efficacy roughly comparable to maximum doses of the most potent GLP-1 mono-agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk), as well as by tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly), a dual agonist for the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who presented the results from the type 2 diabetes study of retatrutide.

For the obesity study, people with a body mass index of 27-50 kg/m² and no diabetes were randomized to placebo or any of four retatrutide target dosages using specified dose-escalation protocols. Participants were an average of 48 years old, and by design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-related pattern. (Weight loss averaged about 2% among the 70 controls who received placebo.)
 

Twenty-six percent without diabetes lost at least 30% of body weight

Every person who escalated to receive the 8-mg or 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide lost at least 5% of their bodyweight after 48 weeks, 83% of those taking the 12-mg dose lost at least 15%, 63% of those on the 12-mg dose lost at least 20%, and 26% of those on the highest dose lost at least 30% of their starting bodyweight, reported Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The highest dose was also associated with an average 40% relative reduction in triglyceride levels from baseline and an average 22% relative drop in LDL cholesterol levels.

The results were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The incidence of serious adverse events with retatrutide was low, similar to the rate in those who received placebo, and showed no dose relationship.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, in as many as 16% of those on the highest dose; these were mild to moderate in severity and usually occurred during dose escalation. In general, adverse events were comparable to what is seen with a GLP-1 agonist or the dual agonist tirzepatide, Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

A1c normalization in 26% at the highest dose

A similar safety pattern occurred in the study of people with type 2 diabetes, which randomized people with an average A1c of 8.3% and an average BMI of 35.0 kg/m². After 36 weeks of treatment, the 12-mg weekly dose of retatrutide led to normalization of A1c < 5.7% in 27% of people and A1c ≤ 6.5% in 77%.

“The number of people we were able to revert to a normal A1c was impressive,” said Dr. Rosenstock. These results were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

The additional findings on liver-fat mobilization in people without diabetes enrolled in the obesity study are notable because no agent currently has labeling from the Food and Drug Administration for the indication of reducing excess liver fat, said Dr. Kaplan.

The researchers measured liver fat at baseline and then during treatment using MRI.

“With the level of fat clearance from the liver that we see with retatrutide it is highly likely that we’ll also see improvements in liver fibrosis” in retatrutide-treated patients, Dr. Kaplan predicted.

Next up for retatrutide is testing in pivotal trials, including the TRIUMPH-3 trial that will enroll about 1,800 people with severe obesity and cardiovascular disease, with findings expected toward the end of 2025.

The retatrutide studies are sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Le Roux have reported financial relationships with Eli Lilly as well as other companies.

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