Clinical Topics & News

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.

Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).

“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”

The study, published  in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.

“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
 

Tracing trends over six waves

The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).

Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.

The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.

The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”

Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).

“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.

“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
 

Doing more with the data

David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.

But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.

“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.

“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

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

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – For patients with obesity, surgery, lifestyle changes, and pharmacologic interventions are all treatment options, but antiobesity medications provide a better risk-to-benefit ratio, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.

Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
 

Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications

Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.

Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.

“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.

Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
 

Newer anti‐obesity medications

Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”

Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”

Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.

Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
 

Emerging antiobesity medications

Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.

A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
 

A ‘holistic approach’

When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.

He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.

Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.

“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”

Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.

Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.

SAN DIEGO – For patients with obesity, surgery, lifestyle changes, and pharmacologic interventions are all treatment options, but antiobesity medications provide a better risk-to-benefit ratio, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.

Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
 

Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications

Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.

Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.

“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.

Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
 

Newer anti‐obesity medications

Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”

Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”

Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.

Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
 

Emerging antiobesity medications

Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.

A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
 

A ‘holistic approach’

When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.

He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.

Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.

“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”

Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.

Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.

SAN DIEGO – For patients with obesity, surgery, lifestyle changes, and pharmacologic interventions are all treatment options, but antiobesity medications provide a better risk-to-benefit ratio, according to a presenter at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.

Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
 

Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications

Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.

Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.

“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.

Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
 

Newer anti‐obesity medications

Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”

Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”

Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.

Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
 

Emerging antiobesity medications

Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.

A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
 

A ‘holistic approach’

When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.

He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.

Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.

“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”

Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.

Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for atogepant (Qulipta, Abbvie) to include prevention of chronic migraine in adults. The approval makes atogepant the first, and only, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved to prevent migraine across frequencies, including episodic and chronic, the company said in a news release.

The FDA initially approved atogepant in 2021 for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.

Once-daily atogepant is available in three doses – 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg – for prevention of episodic migraine. However, only the 60-mg dose of medication is indicated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

The expanded indication in chronic migraine is based on positive results of the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which evaluated atogepant in more than 700 adults with chronic migraine.

The trial met the primary endpoint of statistically significant reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine days with atogepant compared with placebo across the 12-week treatment period.

Treatment with atogepant also led to statistically significant improvements in all six secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients that achieved at least a 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days across 12 weeks and improvements in function and reduction in activity impairment caused by migraine.

The efficacy results are consistent with those in the ADVANCE episodic migraine trial.

The overall safety profile of atogepant is consistent with the episodic migraine patient population, with the most common adverse events including constipation, nausea, and fatigue/sleepiness.

“The FDA approval is an important milestone, providing those most impacted by migraine with a new, safe, and effective treatment option in a convenient, once-daily pill,” Peter McAllister, MD, director of the New England Center for Neurology and Headache, Stamford, Conn., said in the news release.

The data demonstrate that atogepant “helps reduce the burden of migraine by delivering improvements in function, with high response rates and sustained efficacy over 12 weeks. These are critical factors neurologists and headache specialists consider when prescribing a treatment option, particularly for those with chronic migraine,” Dr. McAllister added.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for atogepant (Qulipta, Abbvie) to include prevention of chronic migraine in adults. The approval makes atogepant the first, and only, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved to prevent migraine across frequencies, including episodic and chronic, the company said in a news release.

The FDA initially approved atogepant in 2021 for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.

Once-daily atogepant is available in three doses – 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg – for prevention of episodic migraine. However, only the 60-mg dose of medication is indicated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

The expanded indication in chronic migraine is based on positive results of the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which evaluated atogepant in more than 700 adults with chronic migraine.

The trial met the primary endpoint of statistically significant reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine days with atogepant compared with placebo across the 12-week treatment period.

Treatment with atogepant also led to statistically significant improvements in all six secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients that achieved at least a 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days across 12 weeks and improvements in function and reduction in activity impairment caused by migraine.

The efficacy results are consistent with those in the ADVANCE episodic migraine trial.

The overall safety profile of atogepant is consistent with the episodic migraine patient population, with the most common adverse events including constipation, nausea, and fatigue/sleepiness.

“The FDA approval is an important milestone, providing those most impacted by migraine with a new, safe, and effective treatment option in a convenient, once-daily pill,” Peter McAllister, MD, director of the New England Center for Neurology and Headache, Stamford, Conn., said in the news release.

The data demonstrate that atogepant “helps reduce the burden of migraine by delivering improvements in function, with high response rates and sustained efficacy over 12 weeks. These are critical factors neurologists and headache specialists consider when prescribing a treatment option, particularly for those with chronic migraine,” Dr. McAllister added.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for atogepant (Qulipta, Abbvie) to include prevention of chronic migraine in adults. The approval makes atogepant the first, and only, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved to prevent migraine across frequencies, including episodic and chronic, the company said in a news release.

The FDA initially approved atogepant in 2021 for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.

Once-daily atogepant is available in three doses – 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg – for prevention of episodic migraine. However, only the 60-mg dose of medication is indicated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

The expanded indication in chronic migraine is based on positive results of the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which evaluated atogepant in more than 700 adults with chronic migraine.

The trial met the primary endpoint of statistically significant reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine days with atogepant compared with placebo across the 12-week treatment period.

Treatment with atogepant also led to statistically significant improvements in all six secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients that achieved at least a 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days across 12 weeks and improvements in function and reduction in activity impairment caused by migraine.

The efficacy results are consistent with those in the ADVANCE episodic migraine trial.

The overall safety profile of atogepant is consistent with the episodic migraine patient population, with the most common adverse events including constipation, nausea, and fatigue/sleepiness.

“The FDA approval is an important milestone, providing those most impacted by migraine with a new, safe, and effective treatment option in a convenient, once-daily pill,” Peter McAllister, MD, director of the New England Center for Neurology and Headache, Stamford, Conn., said in the news release.

The data demonstrate that atogepant “helps reduce the burden of migraine by delivering improvements in function, with high response rates and sustained efficacy over 12 weeks. These are critical factors neurologists and headache specialists consider when prescribing a treatment option, particularly for those with chronic migraine,” Dr. McAllister added.

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

Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.

Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.

California Department of Public Health

The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.

“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
 

In the lab and in the field

In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.

In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.

Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.

Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.

Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.

As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.

Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.

According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”

Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.

Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.

Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.

California Department of Public Health

The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.

“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
 

In the lab and in the field

In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.

In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.

Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.

Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.

Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.

As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.

Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.

According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”

Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.

Scent-detecting dogs have long been used to sniff out medical conditions ranging from low blood sugar and cancer to malaria, impending seizures, and migraines – not to mention explosives and narcotics.

Recently, the sensitivity of the canine nose has been tested as a strategy for screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in schoolchildren showing no outward symptoms of the virus. A pilot study led by Carol A. Glaser, DVM, MD, of the California Department of Public Health in Richmond, found that trained dogs had an accuracy of more than 95% for detecting the odor of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, produced by COVID-infected individuals.

California Department of Public Health

The authors believe that odor-based diagnosis with dogs could eventually provide a rapid, inexpensive, and noninvasive way to screen large groups for COVID-19 without the need for antigen testing.

“This is a new program with research ongoing, so it would be premature to consider it from a consumer’s perspective,” Dr. Glaser said in an interview. “However, the data look promising and we are hopeful we can continue to pilot various programs in various settings to see where, and if, dogs can be used for biomedical detection.”
 

In the lab and in the field

In a study published online in JAMA Pediatrics, Dr. Glaser’s group found that after 2 months’ training on COVID-19 scent samples in the laboratory, the dogs detected the presence of the virus more than 95% of the time. Antigen tests were used as a comparative reference.

In medical terms, the dogs achieved a greater than 95% accuracy on two important measures of effectiveness: sensitivity – a test’s ability to correctly detect the positive presence of disease – and specificity – the ability of a test to accurately rule out the presence of disease and identify as negative an uninfected person.

Next, the researchers piloted field tests in 50 visits at 27 schools from April 1 to May 25, 2022, to compare dogs’ detection ability with that of standard laboratory antigen testing. Participants in the completely voluntary screening numbered 1,558 and ranged in age from 9 to 17 years. Of these, 56% were girls and 89% were students. Almost 70% were screened at least twice.

Overall, the field test compared 3,897 paired antigen-vs.-dog screenings. The dogs accurately signaled the presence of 85 infections and ruled out 3,411 infections, for an overall accuracy of 90%. In 383 cases, however, they inaccurately signaled the presence of infection (false positives) and missed 18 actual infections (false negatives). That translated to a sensitivity in the field of 83%, considerably lower than that of their lab performance.

Direct screening of individuals with dogs outside of the lab involved circumstantial factors that likely contributed to decreased sensitivity and specificity, the authors acknowledged. These included such distractions as noise and the presence of excitable young children as well environmental conditions such as wind and other odors. What about dog phobia and dog hair allergy? “Dog screening takes only a few seconds per student and the dogs do not generally touch the participant as they run a line and sniff at ankles,” Dr. Glaser explained.

As for allergies, the rapid, ankle-level screening occurred in outdoor settings. “The chance of allergies is very low. This would be similar to someone who is out walking on the sidewalk and walks by a dog,” Dr. Glaser said.

Last year, a British trial of almost 4,000 adults tested six dogs trained to detect differences in VOCs between COVID-infected and uninfected individuals. Given samples from both groups, the dogs were able to distinguish between infected and uninfected samples with a sensitivity for detecting the virus ranging from 82% to 94% and a specificity for ruling it out of 76% to 92%. And they were able to smell the VOCs even when the viral load was low. The study also tested organic sensors, which proved even more accurate than the canines.

According to lead author James G. Logan, PhD, a disease control expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in London, “Odour-based diagnostics using dogs and/or sensors may prove a rapid and effective tool for screening large numbers of people. Mathematical modelling suggests that dog screening plus a confirmatory PCR test could detect up to 89% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, averting up to 2.2 times as much transmission compared to isolation of symptomatic individuals only.”

Funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (CDCF) to Early Alert Canines for the purchase and care of the dogs and the support of the handlers and trainers. The CDCF had no other role in the study. Coauthor Carol A. Edwards of Early Alert Canines reported receiving grants from the CDCF.

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause death in people with type 2 diabetes, reveals a U.S. study that also suggests switching to coffee, tea, or low-fat milk may diminish these risks.

The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.

The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.

“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.

“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.


 

Choice of drink matters

Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.

Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.

There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.

Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”

“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.

Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
 

Expanding the evidence

It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.

Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.

Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.

To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.

For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.

Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.

During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.

Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).

In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.

The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.

Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.

The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”

The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.

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

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Although the past 30 years have stirred up a whirlwind of neurological research that has dramatically expanded therapeutic options for patients with epilepsy, historical pioneers in the field might be disappointed at the fact that treatment response has remained stubbornly stagnant. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” they might say: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In fact, since 1993, despite an explosion of third-generation drugs, an abundance of new surgical approaches, and a whole new category of treatment in the form of neurostimulation devices, response rates in epilepsy have not budged, with roughly two-thirds of patients achieving seizure freedom and a third still struggling with treatment resistance.

But if you widen the lens and look towards the horizon, things are “on the cusp and going like a rocket,” said Jacqueline A. French, MD, professor of neurology in the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at NYU Langone Health, New York. While treatment response rates may be stuck, adverse effects of those treatments have plummeted, and even treatment-resistant patients dealing with residual seizures live a much freer life with far fewer and less serious episodes.
 

Simpler times

In the late 1980s, just as Dr. French was finishing her second epilepsy fellowship at Yale, it was “almost laughable that things were so simple,” she recalls. “There were a few major centers that were doing epilepsy surgery … and in the world of medication, there were just five major drugs: phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate.” That all changed as she was settling in to her first academic position at the University of Pennsylvania, with the “explosive” introduction of felbamate, a new antiseizure drug whose precipitous rise and fall from favor cast a sobering shadow which set the course for future drug development in the field.

“The felbamate story has a lot to do with what came after, but it was a drug that was much more advantageous in regards to a lot of the things that we didn’t like about antiseizure medicines or antiepileptic drugs as we called them at that time,” she said. The older drugs affected the cerebellum, making people sleepy and unable to concentrate. They also came with the risk of serious adverse effects such as hepatic enzyme induction and teratogenicity. Not only was felbamate nonsedating, “it actually was a little bit alerting,” said Dr. French. “People felt so different and so great on it, and it was effective for some seizure types that we didn’t really have good drugs for.” Very quickly, felbamate became a first-line therapy. Within its first year on the market, 150,000 newly diagnosed patients were started on it, “which is unthinkable now,” she said.

Sure enough, it all came crashing down a year later, on Aug. 1, 1994, when the drug was urgently withdrawn by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after being linked to the development of aplastic anemia. “There was a day that anybody who was there at the time will remember when we all got the news, that everybody had to be taken off the drug,” Dr. French recalled. “We spent the weekend in the chart room, looking chart by chart by chart, for who was on felbamate.”

Until then, Dr. French had been straddling the line between her interests in pharmacologic versus surgical treatments for epilepsy. In fact, during her second epilepsy fellowship, which was dedicated to surgery, she published “Characteristics of medial temporal lobe epilepsy” in Annals of Neurology, one of the most-cited papers of her career. “Epilepsy from the temporal lobe is the biggest and best shot on goal when you’re talking about sending somebody to epilepsy surgery and rendering them completely seizure free,” she said. “Early in my career at the University of Pennsylvania, it was all about identifying those patients. And you know, there is nothing more gratifying than taking somebody whose life has been devastated by frequent seizures, who is injuring themselves and not able to be independent, and doing a surgery, which is very safe, and then all the seizures are gone – which is probably why I was so excited by surgery at the time.”

For a while, in the early 1990s, temporal lobectomy eclipsed many of the other avenues in epilepsy treatment, but it too has given way to a much wider variety of more complex techniques, which may be less curative but more palliative.
 

More drug options

Meanwhile, the felbamate story had ignited debate in the field about safer drug development – pushing Dr. French into establishing what was then known as the Antiepileptic Drug Trials conference, later renamed the Epilepsy Therapies & Diagnostics Development Symposium – a forum that encouraged safer, but also swifter movement of drugs through the pipeline and onto the market. “After felbamate, came gabapentin, and then came to topiramate and lamotrigine, and very quickly there were many, many, many choices,” she explained. “But once stung, twice shy. Felbamate really gave us a new perspective on which patients we put on the new drugs. Now we have a process of starting them in people with treatment-resistant epilepsy first. The risk-benefit equation is more reasonable because they have lots of risks. And then we work our way back to people with newly diagnosed epilepsy.”

Disease-modifying therapies

Today, the medications used to treat epilepsy are referred to as antiseizure rather than antiepileptic drugs because they simply suppress seizure symptoms and do not address the cause. But the rocket that Dr. French is watching gain speed and momentum is the disease-modifying gene therapies – true antiepileptics that may significantly move the needle on the number and type of patients who can reach seizure freedom. “We spent the last 25 years not even thinking we would ever have antiepileptic therapies, and now in the last 5 years or so, we were pretty sure we will,” she said. “We have gene therapies that can intervene now – none yet that have actually reached approval, these are all currently in trials – but we certainly have high expectations that they will very soon be available.”

Improving patients’ lives

While gene therapy rockets ahead, new device developments are already improving life for patients, even despite ongoing seizures. A drug-delivering pump is still in trials, but could make a big difference to daily medication adherence, and wearable or implantable devices are being developed to track seizures. More accurate tracking has also revealed that many people’s seizures are actually quite predictable, with regular cycles allowing for the possibility of prophylactic medication when increased seizure activity is expected.

Despite 30 years of no change in the proportion of epilepsy patients experiencing treatment resistance, Dr. French said that drugs, devices, and surgeries have improved the lives of all patients – both treatment resistant and treatment sensitive. “The difference between almost seizure free and completely seizure free is a big one because it means you can’t drive, you may have difficulty with your employment, but being able to take a pill every day and feel otherwise completely normal? We’ve come a long way.”

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

Social media outlets are full of stories about celebrities who have lost weight with the new generation of incretin medications like semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.

Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?

Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.

Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
 

Medications effective but cost prohibitive?

Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.

Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.

Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.

Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.

Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
 

Stopping equals weight regain

Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.

The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.

There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.

These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.

A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.

Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.

Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?

The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.

However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.

People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.

Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.

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

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

Headache treatment before the early 1990s was marked by decades of improvisation with mostly unapproved agents, followed by an explosion of scientific interest and new treatments developed specifically for migraine.

For practicing neurologists today, headache is one subspecialty in which options and opportunities abound. But this is largely thanks to the sea change that occurred 30 years ago.

In an interview, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, past president of the International Headache Society and clinical professor of neurology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, recalled what it was like to treat patients before and after triptan medications came onto the market.

After the first of these anti-migraine agents, sumatriptan, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in late December 1992, headache specialists found themselves with a powerful, approved treatment that validated their commitment to solving the disorder, and helped put to rest a persistent but mistaken notion that migraine was a psychiatric condition affecting young women.

But in the 1970s and 1980s, “there wasn’t great science explaining the pathophysiology of common primary headaches like tension-type headache, cluster headache, and migraine,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There is often comorbid depression and anxiety with migraine, and sometimes more serious psychiatric disease, but it doesn’t mean migraine is caused by psychological issues. Now we see it clearly as a disease of the brain, but it took years of investigation to prove that.”
 

The early years

Dr. Rapoport’s journey with headache began in 1972, when he joined a private neurology practice in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn. Neurologists were frowned upon then for having too much interest in headache, he said. There was poor remuneration for doctors treating headache patients, who were hard to properly diagnose and effectively care for. Few medications could effectively stop a migraine attack or reliably reduce the frequency of headaches or the disability they caused.

On weekends Dr. Rapoport covered emergency departments and ICUs at three hospitals, where standard treatment for a migraine attack was injectable opiates. Not only did this treatment aggravate nausea, a common migraine symptom, “but it did not stop the migraine process.” Once the pain relief wore off, patients woke up with the same headache, Dr. Rapoport recalled. “The other drug that was available was ergotamine tartrate” – a fungal alkaloid used since medieval times to treat headache – “given sublingually. It helped the headache slightly but increased the nausea. DHE, or dihydroergotamine, was available only by injection and not used very much.”

DHE, a semi-synthetic molecule based on ergotamine, had FDA approval for migraine, but was complicated to administer. Like the opioids, it provoked vomiting when given intravenously, in patients already suffering migraine-induced nausea. But Dr. Rapoport, along with some of his colleagues, felt that there was a role for DHE for the most severe subtypes of patients, those with long histories of frequent migraines.

“We put people in the hospital and we gave them intravenous DHE. Eventually I got the idea to give it intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the emergency room or my office. When you give it that way, it doesn’t work as quickly but has fewer side effects.” Dr. Rapoport designed a cocktail by coadministering promethazine for nausea, and eventually added a steroid, dexamethasone. The triple shots worked on most patients experiencing severe daily or near-daily migraine attacks, Dr. Rapoport saw, and he began administering the drug combination at The New England Center for Headache in Stamford and Greenwich, Conn., which he opened with Dr. Fred D. Sheftell in 1979.

“The triple shots really worked,” Dr. Rapoport recalled. “There was no need to keep patients in the office or emergency room for intravenous therapy. The patients never called to complain or came back the next day,” he said, as often occurred with opioid treatment.

Dr. Rapoport had learned early in his residency, in the late 1960s, from Dr. David R. Coddon, a neurologist at Mount Sinai hospital in New York, that a tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, could be helpful in some patients with frequent migraine attacks. As evidence trickled in that other antidepressants, beta-blockers, and antiepileptic drugs might have preventive properties, Dr. Rapoport and others prescribed them for certain patients. But of all the drugs in the headache specialists’ repertoire, few were approved for either treatment or prevention. “And this continued until the triptans,” Dr. Rapoport said.
 

The triptan era

Sumatriptan was developed by Glaxo for the acute treatment of migraine. The medication, first available only as self-administered subcutaneous injections, was originally designed to bind to vascular serotonin receptors to allow selective constriction of cranial vessels that dilate, causing pain, during a migraine attack. (Years later it was discovered that triptans also worked as anti-inflammatory agents that decreased the release of the neurotransmitter calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP.)

Triptans “changed the world for migraine patients and for me,” Dr. Rapoport said. “I could now prescribe a medication that people could take at home to decrease or stop the migraine process in an hour or two.” The success of the triptans prompted pharmaceutical companies to search for new, more effective ways to treat migraine attacks, with better tolerability.

Seven different triptans were developed, some as injections or tablets and others as nasal sprays. “If one triptan didn’t work, we’d give a second and rarely a third,” Dr. Rapoport said. “We learned that if oral triptans did not work, the most likely issue was that it was not rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, as migraine patients have nausea, poor GI absorption, and slow transit times. This prompted the greater use of injections and nasal sprays.” Headache specialists began combining triptan treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, offering further relief for the acute care of migraine.
 

Medication overuse headache

The years between 1993 and 2000, which saw all the current triptan drugs come onto the market, was an exhilarating one for headache specialists. But even those who were thrilled by the possibilities of the triptans, like Dr. Rapoport, soon came to recognize their limitations, in terms of side effects and poor tolerability for some patients.

Specialists also noticed something unsettling about the triptans: that patients’ headaches seemed to recur within a day, or occur more frequently over time, with higher medication use.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) was known to occur when patients treated migraine too often with acute care medications, especially over-the-counter analgesics and prescription opioids and barbiturates. Dr. Rapoport began warning at conferences and in seminars that MOH seemed to occur with the triptans as well. “In the beginning other doctors didn’t think the triptans could cause MOH, but I observed that patients who were taking triptans daily or almost daily were having increased headache frequency and the triptans stopped being effective. If they didn’t take the drug they were overusing, they were going to get much worse, almost like a withdrawal.”

Today, all seven triptans are now generic, and they remain a mainstay of migraine treatment: “Almost all of my patients are using, or have used a triptan,” Dr. Rapoport said. Yet researchers came to recognize the need for treatments targeting different pathways, both for prevention and acute care.
 

The next revolution: CGRP and gepants

Studies in the early 2000s began to show a link between the release of one ubiquitous nervous system neurotransmitter, calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP, and migraine. They also noticed that blocking meningeal inflammation could lead to improvement in headache. Two new drug classes emerged from this science: monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor that had to be given by injection, and oral CGRP receptor blockers that could be used both as a preventive or as an acute care medication.

In 2018 the first monoclonal antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab (Aimovig, marketed by Amgen), delivered by injection, was approved for migraine prevention. Three others followed, most given by autoinjector, and one by IV infusion in office or hospital settings. “Those drugs are great,” Dr. Rapoport said. “You take one shot a month or every 3 months, and your headaches drop by 50% or more with very few side effects. Some patients actually see their migraines disappear.”

The following year ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, marketed by AbbVie), the first of a novel class of oral CGRP receptor blockers known as “gepants,” was approved to treat acute migraine. The FDA soon approved another gepant, rimegepant (Nurtec, marketed by Pfizer), which received indications both for prevention and for stopping a migraine attack acutely.

Both classes of therapies – the antibodies and the gepants – are far costlier than the triptans, which are all generic, and may not be needed for every migraine patient. With the gepants, for example, insurers may restrict use to people who have not responded to triptans or for whom triptans are contraindicated or cause too many adverse events. But the CGRP-targeted therapies as a whole “have been every bit as revolutionary” as the triptans, Dr. Rapoport said. The treatments work quickly to resolve headache and disability and get the patient functioning within an hour or two, and there are fewer side effects.

In a review article published in CNS Drugs in 2021, Dr. Rapoport and his colleagues reported that the anti-CGRP treatment with gepants did not appear linked to medication overuse headache, as virtually all previous acute care medication classes did, and could be used in patients who had previously reported MOH. “I am confident that over the next few years, more people will be using them as insurance coverage will improve for patients living with migraine,” he said.
 

Headache treatment today

Migraine specialists and patients now have a staggering range of therapeutic options. Approved treatments now include prevention of migraine with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, marketed by the Allergan division of AbbVie) injections, which work alone and with other medicines; acute care treatment with ditans like lasmiditan (Reyvow, marketed by Lilly*), a category of acute care medicines that work like triptans but target different serotonin receptors. Five devices have been cleared for migraine and other types of headache by the FDA. These work alone or along with medication and can be used acutely or preventively. The devices “should be used more,” Dr. Rapoport said, but are not yet well covered by insurance.

Thirty years after the triptans, scientists and researchers continue to explore the pathophysiology of headache disorders, finding new pathways and identifying new potential targets.

“There are many parts of the brain and brain stem that are involved, as well as the thalamus and hypothalamus,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s interesting that the newer medications, and some of the older ones, work in the peripheral nervous system, outside the brain stem in the trigeminovascular system, to modulate the central nervous system. We also know that the CGRP system is involved with cellular second-order messengers. Stimulating and blocking this chain of reactions with newer drugs may become treatments in the future.”

Recent research has focused on a blood vessel dilating neurotransmitter, pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, or PACAP-38, as a potential therapeutic target. Psychedelic medications such as psilocybin, strong pain medications such as ketamine, and even cannabinoids such as marijuana have all been investigated in migraine. Biofeedback therapies, mindfulness, and other behavioral interventions also have proved effective.

“I expect the next 2-5 years to bring us many important clinical trials on new types of pharmacological treatments,” Dr. Rapoport said. “This is a wonderful time to be a doctor or nurse treating patients living with migraine. When I started out treating headache, 51 years ago, we had only ergotamine tartrate. Today we have so many therapies and combinations of therapies that I hardly know where to start.”

Dr. Rapoport has served as a consultant to or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Lundbeck, Satsuma, and Teva, among others.

*Correction, 3/30/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the company that markets Reyvow.

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.

The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.

Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.

The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
 

Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF

“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.

“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.

“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
 

An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype

The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.

Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.

An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.

The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.

The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.

Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.

The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
 

Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF

“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.

“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.

“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
 

An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype

The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.

Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.

An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.

The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.

NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.

The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.

Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.

The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
 

Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF

“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.

“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.

“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
 

An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype

The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.

Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.

An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.

The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.

The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.