User login
Insufficient sleep impairs women’s insulin sensitivity
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Women, particularly those who are postmenopausal, who sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night may have impaired insulin sensitivity regardless of their degree of adiposity, a randomized crossover trial reveals.
The research was published recently in Diabetes Care.
Nearly 40 women were randomly assigned to either restricted sleep or adequate sleep for 6 weeks, then crossed over to the other sleep condition. During sleep restriction, women slept an average of 6.2 hours per night versus 7-9 hours per night.
Both fasting insulin levels and insulin resistance were significantly increased during sleep restriction, with the effect on insulin resistance particularly notable in postmenopausal women. This was independent of adiposity and changes in adiposity.
“What we’re seeing is that more insulin is needed to normalize glucose levels in the women under conditions of sleep restriction,” said senior author Marie-Pierre St-Onge, PhD, director of the Center of Excellence for Sleep and Circadian Research at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, in a release.
“Even then, the insulin may not have been doing enough to counteract rising blood glucose levels of postmenopausal women,” she stated.
Prolonged lack of sleep may accelerate diabetes progression
Dr. St-Onge added,
Dr. St-Onge said in an interview that it was crucial to show the impact of sleep restriction in a randomized study, because “observational studies don’t provide information on causality.”
The study did not rely on people “living in our clinical research facility,” but instead enrolled individuals who were “living their lives,” and the reduction in sleep achieved was “similar to what is seen in the general population with sleep,” she said.
Dr. St-Onge therefore believes the findings indicate that sleep has been overlooked as a contributory factor in insulin sensitivity.
Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer at the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview that this is an “important study [that] builds on what we have seen on the importance of sleep for metabolic outcomes and diabetes.”
He continued, “There have been several studies showing the association of sleep and diabetes, but that does not necessarily mean cause and effect.”
On the other hand, Dr. Gabbay said, “randomizing people can help see sleep influences on key metabolic measures of diabetes, [which] helps to build a stronger case that sleep disturbances can cause worsening metabolic health.”
He emphasized that both the quantity and quality of sleep are “critical for optimal diabetes health” and highlighted that the ADA’s Standards of Care “recommends screening for sleep issues and counseling to improve sleep.”
“This study provides new insight into the health effects of even small sleep deficits in women across all stages of adulthood and racial and ethnic backgrounds,” commented Corinne Silva, PhD, program director in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which co-funded the study.
The authors note that more than one-third of adults sleep less than the recommended 7 hours per night, which is “concerning given robust associations of short sleep with cardiometabolic diseases.”
Moreover, “women report poorer sleep than men,” explained Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which also co-funded the study.
“So understanding how sleep disturbances impact their health across the lifespan is critical, especially for postmenopausal women,” she said, particularly because previous studies have not reflected real-world sleep patterns or have focused on men.
The researchers conducted a trial to evaluate the causal impact of prolonged, mild sleep restriction on cardiometabolic risk factors in women as part of the American Heart Association Go Red for Women Strategically Focused Research Network.
They recruited metabolically healthy women aged 20-75 years who were at increased risk for cardiometabolic disease due to having either overweight or class I obesity or at least one parent with type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease.
They were also required to have a habitual total sleep time on actigraphy of 7-9 hours per night and low risk for sleep apnea. Exclusion criteria included excessive caffeine intake, a significantly advanced or delayed sleep phase, shift work, and travel across time zones.
The participants were randomly assigned to either adequate sleep, defined as 7-9 hours per night, or sleep restriction, defined as a reduction in sleep duration of 1.5 hours per night, for 6 weeks. They were then crossed over to the other sleep condition.
Assessments, including MRI and oral glucose tolerance tests, were performed at baseline and at the end of each study phase.
The researchers report on 38 women who took part in the trial, of whom 11 were postmenopausal. The mean age was 37.6 years; 31.6% self-identified as Black and 26.3% as Hispanic. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.5.
Postmenopausal women had a higher mean age than other women, at 56.1 years versus 30.1 years, and a higher baseline fasting blood glucose, at 5.26 mmol/L (94.68 mg/dL) versus 4.70 mmol/L (84.6 mg/dL).
The team reported that compliance with the sleep protocol was “excellent,” with women during sleep restriction having a reduction in total sleep time of 1.34 hours per night versus women in the adequate sleep arm (P < .0001).
Sleep restriction was also associated with significant increases in fasting plasma insulin versus adequate sleep, at a beta value of 0.68 pmol/L (P = .016), and significantly increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) values (beta = 0.30; P = .016).
The impact on HOMA-IR values was significantly more pronounced in postmenopausal than menopausal women, at beta values of 0.45 versus 0.27 (P for interaction = .042).
Sleep restriction had no significant effect on fasting plasma glucose levels, and the association between sleep duration and cardiometabolic parameters was not modified by the proportion of either total or visceral adipose tissue, or by changes in adiposity.
This clinical trial was supported by the American Heart Association, a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award to Columbia University, and N.Y. Nutrition Obesity Research Center. Individual authors received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES CARE
Bariatric surgery still best option for some with obesity
Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.
“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”
Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.
Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m2 or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 and severe comorbidities.
Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”
During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.
“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.
Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.
Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m2 and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.
Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.
Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.
One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.
Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.
For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.
The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.
A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.
Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.
And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.
However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”
Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.
“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”
Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.
Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m2 or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 and severe comorbidities.
Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”
During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.
“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.
Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.
Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m2 and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.
Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.
Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.
One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.
Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.
For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.
The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.
A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.
Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.
And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.
However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”
Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.
“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”
Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.
Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m2 or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 and severe comorbidities.
Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”
During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.
“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.
Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.
Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m2 and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.
Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.
Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.
One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.
Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.
For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.
The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.
A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.
Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.
And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.
However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”
Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study confirms link between red meat and diabetes risk
This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
Consumption and risk
The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.
Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.
The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.
The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
Alternatives are better
By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.
Confirmation
Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
Consumption and risk
The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.
Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.
The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.
The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
Alternatives are better
By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.
Confirmation
Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
Consumption and risk
The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.
Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.
The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.
The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
Alternatives are better
By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.
Confirmation
Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.
This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
PREVENT: AHA’s new risk calculator incorporates CKM health
.
The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.
It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.
The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.
PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.
“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.
“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.
The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool.
Going beyond the PCE
The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.
In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.
It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.
The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.
“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.
They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.
The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.
The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.
“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
Knowledge gaps
The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:
- Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
- Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
- Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
- Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
- Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.
It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.
The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.
PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.
“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.
“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.
The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool.
Going beyond the PCE
The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.
In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.
It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.
The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.
“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.
They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.
The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.
The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.
“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
Knowledge gaps
The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:
- Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
- Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
- Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
- Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
- Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.
It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.
The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.
PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.
“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.
“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.
The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool.
Going beyond the PCE
The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.
In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.
It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.
The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.
“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.
They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.
The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.
The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.
“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
Knowledge gaps
The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:
- Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
- Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
- Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
- Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
- Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.
The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Already-available drug could help treat type 1 diabetes
“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.
DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.
In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.
The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.
Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m2, 750 mg/m2, and 1,000 mg/m2, respectively).
Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.
There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m2 and 750-mg/m2 treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).
In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.
“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.
However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”
But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”
Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”
Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.
She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”
Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.
DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.
In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.
The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.
Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m2, 750 mg/m2, and 1,000 mg/m2, respectively).
Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.
There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m2 and 750-mg/m2 treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).
In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.
“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.
However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”
But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”
Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”
Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.
She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”
Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I think we have lots of potential to improve people’s quality of life who are living with type 1 diabetes if we can increase their endogenous insulin secretion. ... I think long-term combination therapy is going to be the answer,” study author Emily K. Sims, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview.
DFMO inhibits the polyamine biosynthesis pathway, which plays a role in the inflammatory responses in autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes. It’s sold under the name eflornithine as an intravenous treatment for African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) and as a cream for unwanted hair growth in women. It also has orphan designations for treating various cancers, including neuroblastoma.
In type 1 diabetes, the immune system destroys insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells. Insulin treatment is required. Recently, the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Sanofi) was approved as a treatment for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes in people with autoantibodies that signify a preclinical stage of the condition. As yet, no agent has been approved for preserving beta-cell function after the onset of type 1 diabetes, but many are under investigation.
The new safety study by Dr. Sims and colleagues, which was published in Cell Medicine Reports, enrolled 41 people with type 1 diabetes who had been diagnosed within the previous 8 months, including 31 children. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo oral treatment with DFMO at one of five doses or placebo for 3 months, with 3 additional months of follow-up.
Following a mixed-meal tolerance test at 6 months, the C-peptide area under the curve – a measure of beta-cell function – was significantly higher with the three highest DFMO doses compared to placebo (P = .02, .03, and .02 for 125 mg/m2, 750 mg/m2, and 1,000 mg/m2, respectively).
Two individuals dropped out, one because of anaphylaxis. There were no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events, while mild gastrointestinal events, anemia, and headache were common. “Although there’s no [Food and Drug Administration] approval for the oral form right now, there’s a lot of safety data, including in kids from the neuroblastoma studies,” Dr. Sims explained.
There were no differences in C-peptide at 3 months or in hemoglobin A1c at any time point. Glucose areas under the curve were significantly lower for DFMO, compared with placebo in the 125-mg/m2 and 750-mg/m2 treatment groups at the 6-month time point (P = .03 and .04, respectively).
In their article, Dr. Sims and colleagues also reported confirmatory analyses in mice, as well as testing in the humans showing that there didn’t appear to be significant immune system modulation. “So, we can envision giving DFMO in addition to something that targets the immune system, as a combination therapy,” said Dr. Sims, who also worked on the pivotal study of teplizumab.
“I’m excited. The sample size is small, so I was kind of expecting no efficacy signals. ... It’s definitely worth following up,” she said.
However, she noted, “it wasn’t a slam-dunk huge effect. It was subtle. It seemed that things were kind of more stable compared to placebo over time versus ... a big increase in C-peptide over time.”
But, she added, “I believe that even teplizumab will need to be used in combination. It delays the onset of type 1 diabetes and improves C-peptide, but it didn’t get everyone off insulin. I don’t think we’ve seen any drug that won’t need to be used in combination.”
Dr. Sims pointed to other investigational agents, such as verapamil and various Janus kinase inhibitors, that may also serve in combination to forestall or reduce insulin dependency for people with either new-onset type 1 diabetes or those who have been identified via screening as having type 1 diabetes–related autoantibodies. “I think there are a lot of potential different interventions.”
Dr. Sims and colleagues are now conducting a larger six-center JDRF-funded study of DFMO in early-onset type 1 diabetes that will be fully powered and that will use the highest tolerated doses from the preliminary study.
She believes there will likely be benefit even if the agent doesn’t completely reverse the disease. “The people who are making more insulin are just easier to manage, with more time in range and less hypoglycemia.” Even if the drugs only delay but don’t prevent type 1 diabetes entirely in those at risk, “the improvement in quality of life of being able to delay insulin for a few years is really palpable. ... I’m really optimistic.”
Dr. Sims disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Three other authors are coauthors on a patent application for the use of DFMO for the treatment of beta-cell dysfunction in type 1 diabetes; one of those three authors is an employee of Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CELL MEDICINE REPORTS
WHO: Smoking cessation reduces risk of type 2 diabetes up to 40%
TOPLINE:
, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
- The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
- Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
- Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
- Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
- Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
- Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.
“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
SOURCE:
The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.
The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
LIMITATIONS:
Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.
Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking. However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.
“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
- The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
- Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
- Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
- Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
- Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
- Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.
“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
SOURCE:
The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.
The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
LIMITATIONS:
Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.
Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking. However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.
“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
- The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
- Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.
TAKEAWAY:
- Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
- Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
- Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
- Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
- Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.
IN PRACTICE:
“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.
“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
SOURCE:
The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.
The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
LIMITATIONS:
Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.
Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking. However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.
“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Love more’: Why doctors should promote social connection
Those who embrace lifestyle medicine are familiar with the slogan Dean Ornish, MD, likes to use: Eat well, move more, stress less, love more.
That last one, love, was the renowned physician and author’s focus at the recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine Conference in Denver. That’s because love – essentially the support, connectedness, and caring that patients feel when they join a lifestyle-change program – is “where healing occurs at the deepest level.”
Indeed, social connectedness is emerging as a vital pillar in the burgeoning field of lifestyle medicine, a specialty that uses lifestyle interventions to treat chronic conditions. About 300 lifestyle medicine programs are now integrated into residencies in medical schools across the country, up from a handful just 5 years ago, said Meagan Grega, MD, the conference chair.
“The energy and growth in American lifestyle medicine is unparalleled by anything else I see in the health care world right now,” said Dr. Grega, a family physician for 25 years in eastern Pennsylvania.
The field applies volumes of research, from the 1990s to today, demonstrating the healing effects of lifestyle changes. Dr. Ornish’s Preventive Medicine Research Institute has published research on small changes (like pomegranate juice helping blood flow in the heart) and huge ones: Coronary heart patients reversed the narrowing of arteries without lipid-lowering drugs after 1 year of lifestyle changes, including a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management, and group support.
Ranking alongside bedrocks such as healthy diet, sleep, exercise, and stress management is positive social connection. That part, the “love more” part, often draws skepticism but is vital, said Dr. Ornish, who is sometimes referred to as the father of lifestyle medicine.
It’s “invariably the part that’s the most meaningful – that sense of connection to community that can come when you bring total strangers together,” Dr. Ornish said. “The ‘love more’ part, in many ways, is not only as important, but in some ways even more because everything really flows from that.”
Patients in a support group, who can “let down their emotional defenses and talk openly and authentically,” are much more likely to make and maintain healthy changes, Dr. Ornish said.
Love as medicine
Mounting evidence links loneliness and isolation with a range of health issues, from mood disorders such as depression to chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease. What’s more, data suggest that loneliness and social isolation in the United States are on the rise, and the COVID pandemic made that more clear. In May 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, called loneliness, isolation, and lack of connection in the United States a “public health crisis.”
“Good relationships keep us happier and healthier,” said Robert Waldinger, MD, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Waldinger, who was not affiliated with the conference, is head of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest studies of adult life. Beginning in 1938, the study has tracked 724 people plus more than 1,300 of their descendants and found that embracing community and close relationships helps us live longer and be happier.
In the study, the people who were most satisfied with their relationships at age 50 years were the healthiest at age 80 years. Knowing you have someone to rely on protects the brain: “Those people’s memories stay sharper longer,” Dr. Waldinger said.
He draws a distinction between connection and love. “Love is, I think, more of a feeling,” Dr. Waldinger noted. “Connection is a feeling, but it’s also an activity.”
One in five Americans say they’re lonely, he said, “and loneliness is a stressor.” People who are isolated don’t sleep as well, he added. Their health declines earlier in midlife, brain function slips sooner, and their lives are shorter.
“You don’t have anyone to complain to,” he said. If you do, “you can feel your body start to calm down.” Those without social connections may stay in a low-level “fight-or-flight mode.”
“What we think happens is that you have low levels of inflammation chronically, and those can gradually break down body systems.” Moreover, higher rates of cardiac reactivity, for instance, a racing heartbeat when upset, can lead to high blood pressure and lower immune function.
In his talk, Dr. Ornish said, “Anger is that one emotion that has consistently been shown to make heart disease worse.”
Helping people in those straits is gratifying, Dr. Ornish said. “If we can work with people as lifestyle medicine practitioners when they’re suffering, there’s an opportunity for transformation.”
Future
Of course, that can be easier said than done. Dr. Ornish relayed a patient’s typical reaction to a lifestyle program: “This is kind of weird stuff. Like, I get diet. But a plant-based diet, really? Meditation? Loving more? Really?”
He told the conference, “Part of our job as lifestyle medicine practitioners is to spend a little extra time with them. It doesn’t even take that much time. And to really help them understand what brings them a sense of hope and meaning and purpose.”
The results can be motivating. “Most people feel so much better so quickly,” Dr. Ornish said. “It reframes the reason for change from fear of dying to joy of living.”
Dr. Grega, for one, is optimistic for the future, citing survey results showing that 95% of medical students think that they›d be better counselors with lifestyle training. ‘They passionately want this type of thing,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those who embrace lifestyle medicine are familiar with the slogan Dean Ornish, MD, likes to use: Eat well, move more, stress less, love more.
That last one, love, was the renowned physician and author’s focus at the recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine Conference in Denver. That’s because love – essentially the support, connectedness, and caring that patients feel when they join a lifestyle-change program – is “where healing occurs at the deepest level.”
Indeed, social connectedness is emerging as a vital pillar in the burgeoning field of lifestyle medicine, a specialty that uses lifestyle interventions to treat chronic conditions. About 300 lifestyle medicine programs are now integrated into residencies in medical schools across the country, up from a handful just 5 years ago, said Meagan Grega, MD, the conference chair.
“The energy and growth in American lifestyle medicine is unparalleled by anything else I see in the health care world right now,” said Dr. Grega, a family physician for 25 years in eastern Pennsylvania.
The field applies volumes of research, from the 1990s to today, demonstrating the healing effects of lifestyle changes. Dr. Ornish’s Preventive Medicine Research Institute has published research on small changes (like pomegranate juice helping blood flow in the heart) and huge ones: Coronary heart patients reversed the narrowing of arteries without lipid-lowering drugs after 1 year of lifestyle changes, including a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management, and group support.
Ranking alongside bedrocks such as healthy diet, sleep, exercise, and stress management is positive social connection. That part, the “love more” part, often draws skepticism but is vital, said Dr. Ornish, who is sometimes referred to as the father of lifestyle medicine.
It’s “invariably the part that’s the most meaningful – that sense of connection to community that can come when you bring total strangers together,” Dr. Ornish said. “The ‘love more’ part, in many ways, is not only as important, but in some ways even more because everything really flows from that.”
Patients in a support group, who can “let down their emotional defenses and talk openly and authentically,” are much more likely to make and maintain healthy changes, Dr. Ornish said.
Love as medicine
Mounting evidence links loneliness and isolation with a range of health issues, from mood disorders such as depression to chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease. What’s more, data suggest that loneliness and social isolation in the United States are on the rise, and the COVID pandemic made that more clear. In May 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, called loneliness, isolation, and lack of connection in the United States a “public health crisis.”
“Good relationships keep us happier and healthier,” said Robert Waldinger, MD, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Waldinger, who was not affiliated with the conference, is head of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest studies of adult life. Beginning in 1938, the study has tracked 724 people plus more than 1,300 of their descendants and found that embracing community and close relationships helps us live longer and be happier.
In the study, the people who were most satisfied with their relationships at age 50 years were the healthiest at age 80 years. Knowing you have someone to rely on protects the brain: “Those people’s memories stay sharper longer,” Dr. Waldinger said.
He draws a distinction between connection and love. “Love is, I think, more of a feeling,” Dr. Waldinger noted. “Connection is a feeling, but it’s also an activity.”
One in five Americans say they’re lonely, he said, “and loneliness is a stressor.” People who are isolated don’t sleep as well, he added. Their health declines earlier in midlife, brain function slips sooner, and their lives are shorter.
“You don’t have anyone to complain to,” he said. If you do, “you can feel your body start to calm down.” Those without social connections may stay in a low-level “fight-or-flight mode.”
“What we think happens is that you have low levels of inflammation chronically, and those can gradually break down body systems.” Moreover, higher rates of cardiac reactivity, for instance, a racing heartbeat when upset, can lead to high blood pressure and lower immune function.
In his talk, Dr. Ornish said, “Anger is that one emotion that has consistently been shown to make heart disease worse.”
Helping people in those straits is gratifying, Dr. Ornish said. “If we can work with people as lifestyle medicine practitioners when they’re suffering, there’s an opportunity for transformation.”
Future
Of course, that can be easier said than done. Dr. Ornish relayed a patient’s typical reaction to a lifestyle program: “This is kind of weird stuff. Like, I get diet. But a plant-based diet, really? Meditation? Loving more? Really?”
He told the conference, “Part of our job as lifestyle medicine practitioners is to spend a little extra time with them. It doesn’t even take that much time. And to really help them understand what brings them a sense of hope and meaning and purpose.”
The results can be motivating. “Most people feel so much better so quickly,” Dr. Ornish said. “It reframes the reason for change from fear of dying to joy of living.”
Dr. Grega, for one, is optimistic for the future, citing survey results showing that 95% of medical students think that they›d be better counselors with lifestyle training. ‘They passionately want this type of thing,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those who embrace lifestyle medicine are familiar with the slogan Dean Ornish, MD, likes to use: Eat well, move more, stress less, love more.
That last one, love, was the renowned physician and author’s focus at the recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine Conference in Denver. That’s because love – essentially the support, connectedness, and caring that patients feel when they join a lifestyle-change program – is “where healing occurs at the deepest level.”
Indeed, social connectedness is emerging as a vital pillar in the burgeoning field of lifestyle medicine, a specialty that uses lifestyle interventions to treat chronic conditions. About 300 lifestyle medicine programs are now integrated into residencies in medical schools across the country, up from a handful just 5 years ago, said Meagan Grega, MD, the conference chair.
“The energy and growth in American lifestyle medicine is unparalleled by anything else I see in the health care world right now,” said Dr. Grega, a family physician for 25 years in eastern Pennsylvania.
The field applies volumes of research, from the 1990s to today, demonstrating the healing effects of lifestyle changes. Dr. Ornish’s Preventive Medicine Research Institute has published research on small changes (like pomegranate juice helping blood flow in the heart) and huge ones: Coronary heart patients reversed the narrowing of arteries without lipid-lowering drugs after 1 year of lifestyle changes, including a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management, and group support.
Ranking alongside bedrocks such as healthy diet, sleep, exercise, and stress management is positive social connection. That part, the “love more” part, often draws skepticism but is vital, said Dr. Ornish, who is sometimes referred to as the father of lifestyle medicine.
It’s “invariably the part that’s the most meaningful – that sense of connection to community that can come when you bring total strangers together,” Dr. Ornish said. “The ‘love more’ part, in many ways, is not only as important, but in some ways even more because everything really flows from that.”
Patients in a support group, who can “let down their emotional defenses and talk openly and authentically,” are much more likely to make and maintain healthy changes, Dr. Ornish said.
Love as medicine
Mounting evidence links loneliness and isolation with a range of health issues, from mood disorders such as depression to chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease. What’s more, data suggest that loneliness and social isolation in the United States are on the rise, and the COVID pandemic made that more clear. In May 2023, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, called loneliness, isolation, and lack of connection in the United States a “public health crisis.”
“Good relationships keep us happier and healthier,” said Robert Waldinger, MD, a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dr. Waldinger, who was not affiliated with the conference, is head of the Harvard Study of Adult Development, one of the longest studies of adult life. Beginning in 1938, the study has tracked 724 people plus more than 1,300 of their descendants and found that embracing community and close relationships helps us live longer and be happier.
In the study, the people who were most satisfied with their relationships at age 50 years were the healthiest at age 80 years. Knowing you have someone to rely on protects the brain: “Those people’s memories stay sharper longer,” Dr. Waldinger said.
He draws a distinction between connection and love. “Love is, I think, more of a feeling,” Dr. Waldinger noted. “Connection is a feeling, but it’s also an activity.”
One in five Americans say they’re lonely, he said, “and loneliness is a stressor.” People who are isolated don’t sleep as well, he added. Their health declines earlier in midlife, brain function slips sooner, and their lives are shorter.
“You don’t have anyone to complain to,” he said. If you do, “you can feel your body start to calm down.” Those without social connections may stay in a low-level “fight-or-flight mode.”
“What we think happens is that you have low levels of inflammation chronically, and those can gradually break down body systems.” Moreover, higher rates of cardiac reactivity, for instance, a racing heartbeat when upset, can lead to high blood pressure and lower immune function.
In his talk, Dr. Ornish said, “Anger is that one emotion that has consistently been shown to make heart disease worse.”
Helping people in those straits is gratifying, Dr. Ornish said. “If we can work with people as lifestyle medicine practitioners when they’re suffering, there’s an opportunity for transformation.”
Future
Of course, that can be easier said than done. Dr. Ornish relayed a patient’s typical reaction to a lifestyle program: “This is kind of weird stuff. Like, I get diet. But a plant-based diet, really? Meditation? Loving more? Really?”
He told the conference, “Part of our job as lifestyle medicine practitioners is to spend a little extra time with them. It doesn’t even take that much time. And to really help them understand what brings them a sense of hope and meaning and purpose.”
The results can be motivating. “Most people feel so much better so quickly,” Dr. Ornish said. “It reframes the reason for change from fear of dying to joy of living.”
Dr. Grega, for one, is optimistic for the future, citing survey results showing that 95% of medical students think that they›d be better counselors with lifestyle training. ‘They passionately want this type of thing,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
T2D: Real benefits of new oral antidiabetic drugs
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches.
A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D
What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?
These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.
Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
Real-world benefits – Even better when combined
The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:
All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).
Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).
Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).
A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).
This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.
This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches.
A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D
What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?
These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.
Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
Real-world benefits – Even better when combined
The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:
All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).
Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).
Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).
A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).
This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.
This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in people living with type 2 diabetes (T2D). It is true that patient prognoses have improved with the use of metformin and by addressing cardiovascular risk factors. But the new oral antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors (SGLT2i), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) offer fresh therapeutic approaches.
A cohort of more than 2 million patients with T2D
What about in the real world, far away from the ideal conditions of randomized trials? Could combining SGLT2 inhibitors with GLP-1R agonists be even more effective?
These are the questions answered by a large retrospective cohort study in which 2.2 million patients with T2D receiving insulin were initially enrolled and monitored at 85 specialist centers spread throughout three countries (Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
Three groups were formed from this cohort according to whether they received monotherapy or combination treatments: SGLT2i (n = 143,600), GLP-1Ra (n = 186,841), and SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (n = 108,5040). A control group received none of these treatments.
Propensity score matching took into account the following relevant variables: age, sex, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and glycated hemoglobin. The data was analyzed using the Cox’s proportional hazards model, with follow-up at 5 years.
Real-world benefits – Even better when combined
The inter-group comparison suggests that oral antidiabetic agents are effective when taking into account three major events:
All-cause mortality: SGLT2i (hazard ratio, 0.49; confidence interval 95% 0.48-0.50); GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.47; CI 95% 0.46-0.48); SGLT2i + GLP-1Ra (HR, 0.25; CI 95% 0.24-0.26).
Admissions rate: respectively HR: 0.73 (0.72-0.74); 0.69 (0.68-0.69); 0.60 (0.59-0.61).
Myocardial infarction rate: respectively HR: 0.75 (0.72-0.78); 0.70 (0.68-0.73); 0.63 (0.60-0.66).
A complementary sub-analysis also revealed a more significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the event of exposure to the combination of two antidiabetic drugs versus SGLT2i alone (HR, 0.53 [0.50-0.55]) and GLP-1Ra as monotherapy (HR, 0.56 [0.54-0.59]).
This real-world retrospective cohort study involves a large sample size: more than 400,000 patients with T2D treated with new oral antidiabetic drugs and as many control patients. It suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists have a significant effect on overall mortality, as well as on the risk of myocardial infarction and the admissions rate. Yes, it is retrospective, but its findings are in line with those from the most recent and conclusive randomized trials that suggest a cardio- and nephroprotective effect, at least with regard to SGLT2 inhibitors.
This article was translated from JIM and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
Does laughter offer better blood glucose control?
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
David S. Greene, PhD, associate professor in the department of rehabilitation and human services at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, has pioneered research into the field, one previously overlooked when it comes to diabetes management.
This news organization caught up with Dr. Greene to ask about his research along with the implications for diabetes care and for patient well-being.
Question: What prompted you to research the link between humor and diabetes control?
Answer: I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1966 and consequently have lived with, and studied, various aspects of diabetes for the past 57 years.
For a time, I maintained a small private practice counseling people with diabetes. There I noticed, anecdotally, that my clients’ ability to laugh at, and see the humor in, their diabetes correlated with their emotional adjustment to living with their condition.
While I could find research confirming the physical and psychological benefits of humor in general, I was unable to find any research specifically relating to humor and diabetes.
My new research agenda was born.
Q: What did your research reveal?
A: My first study, published in 2020, found that people living with diabetes displayed the same level of both types of positive, or affiliative and self-enhancing, humor as the norm group used in developing the Humor Styles Questionnaire.
This was a surprising finding given that individuals with diabetes are dealing with a life-altering, chronic illness, with higher rates of depression and anxiety. Moreover, positive humor scores are known to be negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
While levels of aggressive humor were not altered in my study, people with diabetes did have higher levels of self-defeating humor in my study, which is correlated with psychiatric and somatic concerns, and symptomatology, and so is to be expected.
My second study, published in 2021, examined whether there was a difference between people with diabetes who had an hemoglobin A1c level of 6.99% or less versus those with levels of at least 7% on four disparate types of humor.
The A1c of 6.99% or less group scored significantly higher for both affiliative humor and self-enhancing humor. This implies that better diabetes control is associated with positive humor. This was expected, as was the finding that negative humor was not associated with better control.
On the other hand, there was no significant difference between participants on either type of negative humor, whether aggressive or self-defeating.
Finally, my third study, published in 2023 [with coauthor Nancy D. King, PhD], found that offering humor training to people with type 1 diabetes can strengthen both their affiliative and self-enhancing sense of humor, while leaving their aggressive or self-defeating humor unaffected.
Q: What is ‘positive humor,’ and why do you think it is associated with diabetes control?
A: Both affiliative and self-enhancing humor enhance a person’s sense of self and their relationships with others.
Affiliative humor has been shown to be positively correlated with self-esteem, psychological well-being, social intimacy, and emotional stability. It is also negatively correlated with depression and anxiety.
Self-enhancing humor involves the ability to maintain a humorous outlook on life and to use humor to regulate emotions and as a coping strategy. Like affiliative humor, it is correlated with cheerfulness, self-esteem, optimism, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. It is negatively related to depression and anxiety.
The preponderance of literature suggests positive humor specifically is associated with buffering many of the risk factors and complications associated with diabetes.
Q: What could underlie the associations between humor and diabetes control?
A: Unfortunately, none of my studies have been able to determine cause and effect, although the most recent one came the closest.
While not reaching statistical significance, the mean reduction in A1c levels from 7.12% at baseline to 6.75% at the post–humor training assessment may very well imply a practical and psychological significance to patients.
I believe, with a larger sample size, significance will be achieved, and that the relationship between positive humor and diabetes control will be shown to be bidirectional, with positive humor improving diabetes control, and improved control improving positive humor.
I hypothesize this will also bring psychological and physiological benefits. After all, humor has already been associated with reduced blood glucose levels, reduced microvascular complications, improved heart health, reduced blood pressure, decreased levels of depression and anxiety.
Humor also helps us deal with stress and trauma, so a cause-and-effect relationship makes sense.
Q: Can a positive sense of humor be taught?
A: Absolutely. There is evidence that humor can be developed and strengthened. Paul McGhee, PhD, developed a seven-step humor training program that has been effective in elevating measures of humor across a number of studies.
Others have successfully developed their own protocols, and of course my third study demonstrated a significant increase in both affiliative and self-enhancing humor with training.
Q: Do you think humor training could be incorporated into diabetes care?
A: Humor training programs are easily accessible, incur low to no cost, and are easy to implement. Furthermore, once a person is trained, access to ongoing humor is free, readily available, and fun.
Several diabetes educators have also reported that humor can promote connections, encourage and support diabetes management, galvanize effectiveness, and increase an audience’s attention during education programs.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Low-salt diet cut BP by 6 mm Hg in 1 week: CARDIA-SSBP
The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.
“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.
“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”
Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.
Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.
“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.
The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.
“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”
For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.
As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.
Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.
The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.
“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.
He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.
For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
Large effect in people with diabetes
Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.
The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.
Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.
“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”
To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.
“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
Difficult to maintain long term
Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.
He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”
“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”
Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”
He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines
Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.
“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”
Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.
“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.
“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.
“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”
Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.
Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.
“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.
The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.
“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”
For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.
As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.
Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.
The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.
“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.
He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.
For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
Large effect in people with diabetes
Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.
The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.
Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.
“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”
To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.
“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
Difficult to maintain long term
Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.
He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”
“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”
Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”
He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines
Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.
“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”
Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.
“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CARDIA-SSBP trial involved 213 individuals aged 50-75 years, including those with and those without hypertension, and showed that the decline in blood pressure brought about by a low-salt diet was independent of hypertension status and antihypertensive medication use. It was also generally consistent across subgroups and did not result in excess adverse events.
“The blood pressure reduction we see here is meaningful, and comparable to that produced by one antihypertensive medication,” lead investigator Deepak Gupta, MD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta presented the CARDIA-SSBP study on Nov. 11 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Philadelphia. The study was published online in JAMA. The exact menus used in the study are available in a supplement to the JAMA paper.
“In order to live a healthy lifestyle, understanding what we eat has important health effects. Raised blood pressure contributes to one out of every eight deaths worldwide,” Dr. Gupta noted. “If people want to lower their blood pressure, attention to dietary sodium is one part of that. If individuals can stick with a low sodium diet, they may be able to stop taking one of their antihypertensive medications, and those who are normotensive will be less likely to develop hypertension.”
Commentators said the study had significant implications for public health, but they pointed out that maintaining a low-sodium diet over the long term is challenging, given the high salt content of generally available foods.
Dr. Gupta noted that the study did use commercially available products in the low-sodium diets and the menus are available for people to follow, making it more accessible than some diets used in previous studies.
“What may also be attractive to people is that you don’t have to wait for months to see an effect. If you start to consume a low-sodium diet, you can see results on blood pressure rapidly, within a week,” he said.
The diet in this study brought about a large reduction in dietary sodium, but Dr. Gupta says any reduction in dietary sodium is likely to be beneficial.
“If you go to the level that we got to, you could expect to see a reduction of around 6 mm Hg. But it’s like walking – you don’t necessarily need to get to 10,000 steps every day. Any amount of walking or physical activity is of benefit. The same is probably true for salt: Any reduction that you can make is probably of benefit.”
For the study, participants had their blood pressure measured by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring while on their usual diets. They were then randomly assigned to either a high-sodium diet or a low-sodium diet for 1 week. Participants then crossed over to the opposite diet for 1 week, with blood pressure measured over a 24-hour period on the last day of each diet.
As assessed by 24-hour urine excretion, the usual diet of participants was found to already be high in sodium (median, 4.45 g/d). This increased to a median of 5.00 g/d when on the high-sodium diet in the study and decreased to 1.27 g/d while on the low-sodium diet.
Results found participants had a median systolic blood pressure of 125 mm Hg on their usual diets. This was raised to 126 mm Hg on the high-sodium diet and lowered to 119 mm Hg on the low-sodium diet.
The researchers also reported that 75% of individuals showed a blood pressure reduction on the low-sodium diet and are thus defined as “salt-sensitive.” This is a higher percentage than found in previous studies.
“Of those that didn’t show a blood pressure reduction with a low-sodium diet in this study, it appears that they may not have been so adherent to the diet as those who did show a blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Gupta said.
He noted that hypertension is the most common chronic disease condition worldwide, with about 1.3 billion people affected, and although it has been known for some time that dietary sodium affects blood pressure, there have been some gaps in previous studies.
For example, many studies have excluded individuals who were already taking antihypertensive medications and people with diabetes, and they have generally not included many older individuals. The current study found that all of these groups showed significant blood pressure reductions by reducing dietary sodium.
Large effect in people with diabetes
Subgroup analysis largely showed consistent results across the population, regardless of age, sex, race, and body mass index and whether participants were taking antihypertensive medication or not, but there were a couple of exceptions. Individuals with higher blood pressure at baseline seemed to have a greater effect of lowering dietary sodium, although those who were normotensive at baseline still showed significant blood pressure reduction, Dr. Gupta reported.
The researchers found a particularly large reduction in blood pressure from lowering sodium intake in people with diabetes, who made up about 21% of the overall cohort. Their average reduction in systolic blood pressure between the high and low sodium diet was close to 17 mm Hg rather than the 7-8 mm Hg in the whole cohort.
Dr. Gupta said that the results are applicable to most of the population.
“The people who will be most motivated to follow a low-sodium diet are those with hypertension. But even in normotensive individuals, there is likely to be benefit.”
To help people follow a low-sodium diet, Dr. Gupta says education campaigns are needed “to show people that they can do it and make it work.” But there are bigger structural issues that need to be addressed at policy and governmental levels.
“Most of our food available in grocery stores and restaurants is high in salt. We now have a preponderance of evidence showing us that we need to change what’s available in the food supply,” he said. “There is a push going on for this now, and the U.S. has introduced some guidelines for the food industry on sodium content of foods. These are voluntary at this point, but it’s a start.”
Difficult to maintain long term
Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, noted that sodium reduction is known to reduce blood pressure, with greater sodium reductions giving greater blood pressure decreases, and that some people are more sensitive to the effects of sodium than others.
He described CARDIA-SSBP as a “well-done study.”
“They managed to get a very low sodium intake and a large difference between the two groups, which translated into a big reduction in systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Whelton said. “However, the problem with these sorts of trials where the diets are provided to the participants is that although they show proof of concept, it is difficult to generalize because we can’t normally provide patients with their meals. In this type of ‘feeding’ study, we find it difficult to maintain people on their behavioral intervention over the long term.”
Dr. Whelton said that he was more excited about this trial knowing that the food given was commercially available. “That makes it more practical, but you still have to be quite motivated to follow a diet like this. Buying low-sodium products in the supermarket does require quite a lot of work to read the labels, and sometimes the low-sodium foods are specialty products and are more expensive.”
He pointed out that older people in higher socioeconomic classes are more likely to attempt this and do better from behavioral interventions in general. “Unfortunately, people who don’t do well from behavioral interventions like this are those from lower socioeconomic groups, who are ones at most at risk for cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Whelton noted that the food industry has been reluctant to lower sodium content because high-salt foods sell better. “Unfortunately, foods high in saturated fat and salt taste good to most people. We are generally attuned to a high salt intake. But when people have been following a low-salt diet for a while, they generally don’t like high-salt foods anymore. They become attuned to lower-sodium diet,” he added.
New U.S. sodium reduction guidelines
Discussant of the CARDIA-SSBP study at the AHA meeting, Cheryl Anderson, MD, University of California, San Diego, said that the findings were important and consistent with prior studies.
“These studies have global implications because salt is ubiquitous in the food supply in much of the world,” she noted, adding that, “Americans consume almost 50% more sodium than recommended, and there has been a persistent lack of adherence to healthy diet recommendations for reductions in salt, sugar, and fats.”
Dr. Anderson pointed out that in 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidance for voluntary sodium reduction, which uses a gradual approach, with targets to reach a population goal of 3,000 mg/d of sodium by 2023 and 2,300 mg/d by 2031.
“These targets apply to 150 categories of food that are sales-weighted to focus on dominant sellers in each category. They apply to food manufacturers, restaurants and food service operations,” she concluded. “These targets serve as a basis for continued dialogue. The research community eagerly awaits the review of population-based data to help refine this approach and goals.”
This study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors report no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2023