Adolescent Medicine

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Most medical professionals would agree that people with eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge-eating disorder (BED), have serious diseases that result in greater morbidity and mortality compared with those in the general population. Although these do not represent the entire spectrum of eating disorders, these are the ones with the most available research data.

There might be some disagreements on who should be screened, how they should be screened and diagnosed, and how to develop a treatment plan. Some of these may be due to recent changes in physicians’ thinking about who can get an eating disorder. Eating disorders were previously thought to be diseases of affluent white females. Over the past few years, however, it has become more widely accepted that eating disorders may be found across people of a variety of identities and socioeconomic statuses. Clinicians have also become concerned that the incidence of eating disorders has increased and that part of this occurred during the COVID pandemic.
 

APA’s guideline

In February 2023, the American Psychiatric Association released its first update to the Guideline of Treatment of Patients with Eating Disorders. This is the first update to the guideline since 2006. The guideline was updated with the additional evidence that is now available as further studies have been published since the last update. The 2023 guideline provides nine recommendations for assessment and determination of a treatment plan. It then provides three recommendations specifically for AN and two recommendations each for BN and BED. The introduction acknowledges an unsuccessful attempt to provide recommendations for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder due to the paucity of evidence on this disease.

The first recommendation within the guidelines indicates “the clinician should be sure to ask all patients about the presence of eating disorder symptoms as part of their standard psychiatric evaluation.” This recommendation is provided as there are many with normal or elevated BMI who may have eating disorders and the identification could provide the prevention of significant morbidity and mortality. It includes screening questions that can be used and standardized screening questionnaires.

Other recommendations go on to describe further evaluation for diagnosis, aspects of the history that should be obtained, and specific treatment modalities that can be used, including cognitive behavioral therapy and oral medications that have been approved for use in eating disorder treatments.¹
 

AAP’s clinical report

These guidelines add to the recommendations provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which published a clinical report on the Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents in January 2021. In this guidance document, the AAP recommends screening for eating disorders in any children or adolescents with “reported dieting, body image dissatisfaction, experiences of weight-based stigma, or changes in eating or exercise” and those with weight loss or rapid weight fluctuations.

If there are concerns, then a full assessment is warranted, the recommendations say. When a patient is diagnosed with an eating disorder, this clinical report also provides recommendations on history, exam, and treatment pathways.²

USPSTF’s recommendation

The United States Preventive Services Task Force provides a recommendation that differs from the AAP and APA’s. In March 2022, the USPSTF published a Grade I recommendation. They state: “The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults.”

They provide several reasons as to why this was given a Grade I. One reason is the paucity of data that exists on the incidence and/or benefit of screening for eating disorders amongst those who are asymptomatic. They also discuss the potential harms of false positive results of screening for both the patients and health care system. The questionnaires identified were the same as those discussed in both the APA and AAP recommendations.

The USPSTF full guideline also provides a call for further studies that would help provide guidance for primary care clinicians in the area of eating disorders.³
 

Takeaway message

With all this information, what is the primary care clinician to do? It does not seem to me that the APA guideline provides new information on how to identify patients best served by screening for eating disorders.

I am not sure it is reasonable for the primary care physician (PCP) to add these questions to every well visit when assessing the mental health status of patients.

There are ways in which this new guideline can be useful to the PCP, however. Among these are that it provides good resources for further evaluation for patients for whom the PCP may have concerns about eating disorders. It also includes screening tests that do not take much time to complete and clear aspects of the history, physical exam, and laboratory evaluation that can be used to provide further clarification and possible diagnosis. Additionally, this guideline provides clear advice on treatment recommendations of therapy and medications to start. This is especially important as wait times for psychiatric providers seem to always be increasing.

A trusted PCP can use these guidelines to start providing their patient with the help they need. Overall, these new recommendations will not change my screening practices, but they will provide assistance in diagnosis and management of my patients.
 

References

1. Guideline Writing Group. The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders. 2023. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890424865.

2. Hornberger LL et al. Identification and Management of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2021;147 (1): e2020040279. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-040279.

3. Feltner C et al. Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;327(11): 1068-82. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1807.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

High school students are injuring themselves more severely even as overall injury rates have declined, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

The study compared injuries from a 4-year period ending in 2019 to data from 2005 and 2006. The overall rate of injuries dropped 9%, from 2.51 injuries per 1,000 athletic games or practices to 2.29 per 1,000; injuries requiring less than 1 week of recovery time fell by 13%. But, the number of head and neck injuries increased by 10%, injuries requiring surgery increased by 1%, and injuries leading to medical disqualification jumped by 11%. 

“It’s wonderful that the injury rate is declining,” said Jordan Neoma Pizzarro, a medical student at George Washington University, Washington, who led the study. “But the data does suggest that the injuries that are happening are worse.”

The increases may also reflect increased education and awareness of how to detect concussions and other injuries that need medical attention, said Micah Lissy, MD, MS, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Lissy cautioned against physicians and others taking the data at face value. 

“We need to be implementing preventive measures wherever possible, but I think we can also consider that there may be some confounding factors in the data,” Dr. Lissy told this news organization. 

Ms. Pizzarro and her team analyzed data collected from athletic trainers at 100 high schools across the country for the ongoing National Health School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study.

Athletes participating in sports such as football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, and softball were included in the analysis. Trainers report the number of injuries for every competition and practice, also known as “athletic exposures.”

Boys’ football carried the highest injury rate, with 3.96 injuries per 1,000 AEs, amounting to 44% of all injuries reported. Girls’ soccer and boys’ wrestling followed, with injury rates of 2.65 and 1.56, respectively. 

Sprains and strains accounted for 37% of injuries, followed by concussions (21.6%). The head and/or face was the most injured body site, followed by the ankles and/or knees. Most injuries took place during competitions rather than in practices (relative risk, 3.39; 95% confidence interval, 3.28-3.49; P < .05).

Ms. Pizzarro said that an overall increase in intensity, physical contact, and collisions may account for the spike in more severe injuries.

“Kids are encouraged to specialize in one sport early on and stick with it year-round,” she said. “They’re probably becoming more agile and better athletes, but they’re probably also getting more competitive.” 

Dr. Lissy, who has worked with high school athletes as a surgeon, physical therapist, athletic trainer, and coach, said that some of the increases in severity of injuries may reflect trends in sports over the past two decades: Student athletes have become stronger and faster and have put on more muscle mass. 

“When you have something that’s much larger, moving much faster and with more force, you’re going to have more force when you bump into things,” he said. “This can lead to more significant injuries.”

The study was independently supported. Study authors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

High school students are injuring themselves more severely even as overall injury rates have declined, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

The study compared injuries from a 4-year period ending in 2019 to data from 2005 and 2006. The overall rate of injuries dropped 9%, from 2.51 injuries per 1,000 athletic games or practices to 2.29 per 1,000; injuries requiring less than 1 week of recovery time fell by 13%. But, the number of head and neck injuries increased by 10%, injuries requiring surgery increased by 1%, and injuries leading to medical disqualification jumped by 11%. 

“It’s wonderful that the injury rate is declining,” said Jordan Neoma Pizzarro, a medical student at George Washington University, Washington, who led the study. “But the data does suggest that the injuries that are happening are worse.”

The increases may also reflect increased education and awareness of how to detect concussions and other injuries that need medical attention, said Micah Lissy, MD, MS, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Lissy cautioned against physicians and others taking the data at face value. 

“We need to be implementing preventive measures wherever possible, but I think we can also consider that there may be some confounding factors in the data,” Dr. Lissy told this news organization. 

Ms. Pizzarro and her team analyzed data collected from athletic trainers at 100 high schools across the country for the ongoing National Health School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study.

Athletes participating in sports such as football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, and softball were included in the analysis. Trainers report the number of injuries for every competition and practice, also known as “athletic exposures.”

Boys’ football carried the highest injury rate, with 3.96 injuries per 1,000 AEs, amounting to 44% of all injuries reported. Girls’ soccer and boys’ wrestling followed, with injury rates of 2.65 and 1.56, respectively. 

Sprains and strains accounted for 37% of injuries, followed by concussions (21.6%). The head and/or face was the most injured body site, followed by the ankles and/or knees. Most injuries took place during competitions rather than in practices (relative risk, 3.39; 95% confidence interval, 3.28-3.49; P < .05).

Ms. Pizzarro said that an overall increase in intensity, physical contact, and collisions may account for the spike in more severe injuries.

“Kids are encouraged to specialize in one sport early on and stick with it year-round,” she said. “They’re probably becoming more agile and better athletes, but they’re probably also getting more competitive.” 

Dr. Lissy, who has worked with high school athletes as a surgeon, physical therapist, athletic trainer, and coach, said that some of the increases in severity of injuries may reflect trends in sports over the past two decades: Student athletes have become stronger and faster and have put on more muscle mass. 

“When you have something that’s much larger, moving much faster and with more force, you’re going to have more force when you bump into things,” he said. “This can lead to more significant injuries.”

The study was independently supported. Study authors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

High school students are injuring themselves more severely even as overall injury rates have declined, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

The study compared injuries from a 4-year period ending in 2019 to data from 2005 and 2006. The overall rate of injuries dropped 9%, from 2.51 injuries per 1,000 athletic games or practices to 2.29 per 1,000; injuries requiring less than 1 week of recovery time fell by 13%. But, the number of head and neck injuries increased by 10%, injuries requiring surgery increased by 1%, and injuries leading to medical disqualification jumped by 11%. 

“It’s wonderful that the injury rate is declining,” said Jordan Neoma Pizzarro, a medical student at George Washington University, Washington, who led the study. “But the data does suggest that the injuries that are happening are worse.”

The increases may also reflect increased education and awareness of how to detect concussions and other injuries that need medical attention, said Micah Lissy, MD, MS, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Lissy cautioned against physicians and others taking the data at face value. 

“We need to be implementing preventive measures wherever possible, but I think we can also consider that there may be some confounding factors in the data,” Dr. Lissy told this news organization. 

Ms. Pizzarro and her team analyzed data collected from athletic trainers at 100 high schools across the country for the ongoing National Health School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study.

Athletes participating in sports such as football, soccer, basketball, volleyball, and softball were included in the analysis. Trainers report the number of injuries for every competition and practice, also known as “athletic exposures.”

Boys’ football carried the highest injury rate, with 3.96 injuries per 1,000 AEs, amounting to 44% of all injuries reported. Girls’ soccer and boys’ wrestling followed, with injury rates of 2.65 and 1.56, respectively. 

Sprains and strains accounted for 37% of injuries, followed by concussions (21.6%). The head and/or face was the most injured body site, followed by the ankles and/or knees. Most injuries took place during competitions rather than in practices (relative risk, 3.39; 95% confidence interval, 3.28-3.49; P < .05).

Ms. Pizzarro said that an overall increase in intensity, physical contact, and collisions may account for the spike in more severe injuries.

“Kids are encouraged to specialize in one sport early on and stick with it year-round,” she said. “They’re probably becoming more agile and better athletes, but they’re probably also getting more competitive.” 

Dr. Lissy, who has worked with high school athletes as a surgeon, physical therapist, athletic trainer, and coach, said that some of the increases in severity of injuries may reflect trends in sports over the past two decades: Student athletes have become stronger and faster and have put on more muscle mass. 

“When you have something that’s much larger, moving much faster and with more force, you’re going to have more force when you bump into things,” he said. “This can lead to more significant injuries.”

The study was independently supported. Study authors report no relevant financial relationships. 

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

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

I am a psychiatrist now but had another life teaching English in public high school for 17 years. My teaching life, in which I was an openly gay teacher, spanned 2001-2018 and was divided between two urban California schools – in Berkeley and San Leandro. I came out by responding honestly to student questions about whether I had a girlfriend, and what I did over the weekend. At Berkeley High my openness wasn’t an issue at all. The school had a vibrant Gay Straight Alliance/GSA for years, there were many openly gay staff and many openly gay students. No students felt the need to come out to me in search of a gay mentor.

Two years later, I began teaching in San Leandro, 20 miles away, and it was a lesson in how even the San Francisco Bay Area, an LGBTQ+ bastion, could harbor homophobia. When I was hired in 2003, San Leandro High had one openly gay teacher, Q. I quickly realized how much braver his coming out was compared with mine in Berkeley.

In San Leandro, gay slurs were heard nonstop in the hallways, no students were out, and by the end of my first year Q had quit, confiding in me that he couldn’t handle the homophobic harassment from students anymore. There was no GSA. A few years ago, two lesbians had held hands during lunch and inspired the wrath of a group of parents who advocated for their expulsion. In response, a teacher tried to introduce gay sensitivity training into his class and the same group of parents tried to get him fired. He was reprimanded by the principal, he countersued in a case that went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and won. Comparing these two local high schools reinforced to me how visibility really matters in creating a childhood experience that is nurturing versus traumatizing.¹

Two Chinese girls in love

N and T were two Chinese girls who grew up in San Leandro. They went to the same elementary school and had crushes on each other since then. In their junior year, they joined our first student GSA, becoming president and vice-president. They were out. And, of course, they must’ve known that their families, who would not have been supportive, would become aware. I remember sitting at an outdoor concert when I got a text from N warning me her father had found out and blamed me for having corrupted her. He planned on coming to school to demand I be fired. And such was the unrelenting pressure that N and T faced every time they went home from school and sat at their dinner tables. Eventually, they broke up. They didn’t do so tearfully, but more wearily.

This story illustrates how difficult it is for love between two LGBTQ+ teens to be nurtured. Love in youth can already be volatile because of the lack of emotional regulation and experience. The questioning of identity and the threat of family disintegration at a time when these teens do not have the economic means to protect themselves makes love dangerous. It is no wonder that gay teens are at increased risk for homelessness.²

The family incident that led to the girls’ breakup reveals how culture affects homophobic pressure. N resisted her parents’ disapproval for months, but she capitulated when her father had a heart attack and blamed it on her. “And it’s true,” N confided. “After my parents found out, they were continually stressed. I could see it affect their health. And it breaks my heart to see my dad in the hospital.”

For N, she had not capitulated from fear, but perhaps because of filial piety, or one’s obligation to protect one’s parent. It was a choice between two heartbreaks. Double minorities, like N and T, face a double threat and often can find no safe place. One of my patients who is gay and Black put it best: “It’s like being beaten up at school only to come home to another beating.” This double threat is evidenced by the higher suicide risk of ethnicities who are LGBTQ+ relative to their white counterparts.³

The confusion of a gay athlete

R was a star point guard, a senior who had secured an athletic scholarship, and was recognized as the best athlete in our county. A popular boy, he flaunted his physique and flirted with all the girls. And then when he was enrolled in my class, he began flirting with all the boys, too. There was gossip that R was bisexual. Then one day, not unexpectedly, he came out to me as gay. He admitted he only flirted with girls for his reputation.

By this time many students had come out to me but he flirted with me with his revelation. I corrected him and warned him unequivocally that it was inappropriate but I was worried because I knew he had placed his trust in me. I also knew he came from a homophobic family that was violent – his father had attacked him physically at a school game and our coaches had to pull him off.

Instinctively, I felt I had to have a witness so I confided in another teacher and documented the situation meticulously. Then, one day, just as I feared, he went too far. He stayed after class and said he wanted to show me something on his phone. And that something turned out to be a picture of himself naked. I immediately confiscated the phone and reported it to the administration. This was not how I wanted him to come out: His family notified by the police that he had sexually harassed his teacher, expulsion pending, and scholarship inevitably revoked. Fortunately, we did find a resolution that restored R’s future.

Let’s examine the circumstances that could’ve informed his transgressive behavior. If we consider sexual harassment a form of bullying, R’s history of having a father who publicly bullied him – and may have bullied others in front of him – is a known risk factor.⁴ It is also common knowledge that organized team sports were and still are a bastion of homophobia and that gay athletes had to accept a culture of explicit homophobia.⁵

So, it is not hard to understand the constant public pressures that R faced in addition to those from his family. Let’s also consider that appropriate sexual behaviors are not something we are born with, but something that is learned. Of course, inappropriate sexual behavior also happens in the heterosexual world. But heterosexual sexual behavior often has more accepted paths of trial and error. Children experiment with these behaviors and are corrected by adults and older peers as they mature.

However, for homosexual behaviors, there is not usually the fine-tuning about what is appropriate.
 

Summary

An educational environment where LGBTQ+ persons are highly visible and accepted is a more nurturing environment for LGBTQ teens than one that is not. Specific subcultures within the LGBTQ population involving race, culture, gender, and athletics modulate the experience of coming out and the nature of homophobic oppression.

Dr. Nguyen is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of San Francisco School of Medicine at Fresno.

References

1. Kosciw JG et al. The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. J Sch Violence. 2013;12(1):45-63.

2. Center for American Progress. Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers. June 21, 2010).

3. O’Donnell S et al. Increased risk of suicide attempts among Black and Latino lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1055-9.

4. Farrington D and Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. J Aggress Confl Peace Res. 2010 Jan;2(1):4-16.

5. Anderson E. Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment Gend Soc. 2002 Dec:16(6):860-77.

Response to buprenorphine among emergency department patients using fentanyl was similar to that in patients using other opioids, based on data from nearly 900 individuals.

California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.

“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.

“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.” 

In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.

The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.

A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.

The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.

“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”

The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
 

More data needed on dosing strategies

“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”

Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
 

Findings support buprenorphine

“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.

“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.

“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.

“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”

However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.

The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”

However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.

“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”

Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Response to buprenorphine among emergency department patients using fentanyl was similar to that in patients using other opioids, based on data from nearly 900 individuals.

California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.

“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.

“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.” 

In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.

The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.

A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.

The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.

“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”

The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
 

More data needed on dosing strategies

“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”

Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
 

Findings support buprenorphine

“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.

“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.

“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.

“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”

However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.

The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”

However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.

“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”

Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Response to buprenorphine among emergency department patients using fentanyl was similar to that in patients using other opioids, based on data from nearly 900 individuals.

California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.

“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.

“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.” 

In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.

The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.

A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.

The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.

“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”

The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
 

More data needed on dosing strategies

“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”

Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
 

Findings support buprenorphine

“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.

“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.

“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.

“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”

However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.

The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”

However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.

“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”

Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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

In children and adolescents with new-onset type 1 diabetes, the calcium channel blocker verapamil slowed the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells for up to a year, new data show.

Use of daily verapamil within a month of diagnosis resulted in a 30% increase in C-peptide secretion (a measure of preserved beta-cell function), compared with placebo at 52 weeks, without serious adverse events.

To put it another way, verapamil delayed the expected decline in C-peptide production from 3 months after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes to 6 months after diagnosis.

“We think this is a really, really exciting finding that’s hopefully going to impact the care for children with type 1 diabetes in the new-onset period,” lead author Gregory P. Forlenza, MD, said during his presentation of the data on Feb. 24 at the annual Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) meeting in Berlin.

“In view of the favorable safety profile, particularly compared with immune-suppressive agents, once-a-day oral administration, and low cost, initiation of verapamil should be a consideration for newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes,” added Dr. Forlenza, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora.

The data were also simultaneously published in JAMA, as part of the CLVer (Hybrid Closed Loop Therapy and Verapamil for Beta Cell Preservation in New Onset Type 1 Diabetes) trial.

The randomized, double-blind, six-center trial involved 113 participants, aged 7-17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. They were randomized to the most advanced commercially available automated insulin delivery systems available or standard care to test the effects of intensive glucose control on C-peptide levels for 52 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic (July 2020 to September 2022). Eighty-eight patients who weighed 30 kg (66 lb) or more were further randomized (1:1) to daily extended-release verapamil or placebo for the same duration. 

The positive findings for verapamil, published in one paper, contrasted with the negative ones for the automated insulin delivery (AID) system. The latter did not prevent the expected decline in C-peptide, putting to rest a long-held hypothesis that reducing glucotoxicity might preserve beta-cell function in newly diagnosed individuals with type 1 diabetes, noted Dr. Forlenza.
 

Could combination therapy work?

In recent years, immune-modulating agents have increasingly been shown to preserve beta-cell function in both new-onset and preclinical type 1 diabetes. One such agent, teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November 2022 to delay type 1 diabetes onset in those at high risk.

Calcium channel blockers such as verapamil – used for years to treat hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias – may accomplish the same goal as teplizumab but in a different way, by reducing the protein overexpression that induces beta-cell apoptosis and death.

Dr. Forlenza showed a slide comparing the preservation of C-peptide, which was much lower with verapamil, at 30%, than with teplizumab, at 75%.

Asked to comment, session moderator Torben Biester, MD, a pediatric diabetologist at Auf der Bult-Zentrum Diabetes-Center for Children and Adolescents, Hanover, Germany, said: “[Verapamil] is a very cheap [daily] pill. [Teplizumab] is a very high-priced ... immune therapy in the United States ... an infusion twice for 10 days, so it’s a lot more burden for the patients and a lot more risk of side effects.”

“The future might be combination therapy,” added Dr. Biester.

And in an editorial published in JAMA and accompanying the two CLVer papers, Jennifer Couper, MD, of the University of Adelaide, agrees: “A well-tolerated, inexpensive, oral treatment such as verapamil with modest benefits on C-peptide production is relevant to practice.”

The new work “supports investigation of verapamil in combination with other effective agents during the earlier stages of type 1 diabetes before insulin dependence develops,” she noted.
 

Verapamil results ‘brilliant’ but more work needed

In the verapamil part of the CLVer trial, by 52 weeks, verapamil doses in the youth who received it ranged from 120-360 mg/day based on weight and tolerance.

The primary outcome, C-peptide area under the curve, stayed stable, from 0.66 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.65 pmol/mL at 52 weeks in the verapamil group, compared with a drop from 0.60 pmol/mL down to 0.44 pmol/mL with placebo, a significant difference of 0.14 pmol/mL (P = .04), representing a 30% higher C-peptide level in the verapamil group.

“For us, this is a phenomenally exciting result,” Dr. Forlenza commented during his presentation.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.6% in the verapamil group versus 6.9% with placebo, which was not significantly different. Daily insulin dose was 0.65 versus 0.74 units/kg per day, respectively, also not significantly different.

One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in each group, and one diabetic ketoacidosis event occurred in the placebo group. In the verapamil group, three participants experienced “nonserious” electrocardiogram abnormalities and one had hypertension.

Dr. Biester said he isn’t “that concerned” about the small number of mild ECG abnormalities seen in the study with verapamil, as this is a known side effect. But overall, he said, “I would think that for a recommendation for routine use it’s too early after one study, even though the results are brilliant.”

He noted that he is involved in a similar ongoing study of verapamil in adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, called Ver-A-T1D.
 

No C-peptide effect of tight glycemic control: ‘A tough pill’

In the AID part of the study, the 113 participants were randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact (a median of 35 times) by study staff, or standard management using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) with an insulin pump or multiple daily injections.

At 52 weeks, A1c was 6.5% for the intensive group versus 7.1% with standard care, a significant difference. Time in blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL was significantly longer with intensive management, at 78%, compared with standard care, at 64%.

Nonetheless, the change in C-peptide area under the curve did not differ between the two groups, decreasing from 0.57 pmol/mL at baseline to 0.45 pmol/mL at 52 weeks with the AID system, compared with a decrease from 0.60 pmol/L down to 0.50 pmol/L with standard care (P = .89).

Dr. Forlenza commented that the hypothesis that tight glycemic control would delay the decline in C-peptide secretion “is something I think a lot of endocrinologists assumed to be true and something I’ve heard lots of colleagues over the years talk about.”

Consequently, he said these findings are “a tough pill for us to swallow ... but it’s important for us in the field to understand.”

“Even with frequent contacts that are well above the level we’d be able to do in standard clinical care, and even with use of the most advanced AID systems we have ... we saw absolutely no difference in stimulated C-peptide levels at any of the timepoints throughout the first year or at 52 weeks.”

“So, in our opinion, this,” combined with a prior study from 2022, “should put this hypothesis to rest,” he said.

“Excellent glycemic control has a benefit in and of itself, but it was not a successful intervention for beta-cell preservation.”

Dr. Forlenza has reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem Diabetes Care, Insulet, Lilly, and Beta Bionics, and his institution has also received funding on his behalf for research grants from these companies. Dr. Biester has reported receiving speaker’s fees from DexCom, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, and Ypsomed Holding; serving on advisory boards for Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings, AstraZeneca, DexCom, and Medtronic; and receiving personal fees from SYNLAB; and is a member of the European Commission Expert Panel for Medical Devices for Endocrinology and Diabetes. Dr. Couper has reported no relevant financial relationships.

The rationale for the companion CLVer analysis of the effect of reducing glucose toxicity via tight glycemic control on C-peptide progression dates back to an inpatient study published in 1989 involving 26 adolescents using an early artificial pancreas prototype called a Biostator, in which beta-cell preservation was achieved. However, two more recent studies of this approach, including one published in late 2022, did not show a difference. The CLVer analysis involved 113 participants randomized 2:1 to one of two commercially available AID systems (Tandem t:slim X2 with Control-IQ or Medtronic 670G or 780G) plus frequent contact by study staff, or standard management using a CGM with a pump or multiple daily injections.

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