Diabetes

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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

Time-restricted eating (TRE) can be a practical, easy-to-follow way for some people to control their daily food intake and lose weight. It precludes a person’s need to pay close attention to how much they eat as long as they confine consumption to a limited time window. Plus, results from several recent studies show TRE can further benefit people with type 2 diabetes as well as obesity via mechanisms beyond weight loss.

The most tested and recommended eating window is 8 hours long, although periods up to roughly 10 hours may provide some benefits. Results from multiple studies document that TRE produces modest but consistent weight loss of less than 5% in many people. A recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled studies involving 899 people showed an overall incremental weight loss, compared with controls of 1.60 kg on a TRE regimen.

The more limited data collected so far in people with type 2 diabetes show additional metabolic benefits from TRE, including improved beta-cell responsiveness, increased insulin sensitivity, nonoxidative glucose disposal, increased time in glycemic range, and virtually no hypoglycemic events, Courtney Peterson, PhD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

‘Eating earlier is better’

An advantage of TRE is that it is “agnostic to food preferences and quality,” said Lisa S. Chow, MD, during a separate session at the meeting. TRE “may have benefits beyond calorie restriction” that appear related to “the timing of eating and the extent of the eating window restriction. Eating earlier [in the day] is better” for markers of metabolic health regardless of how much weight a person may lose on a TRE regimen, noted Dr. Chow, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

But the TRE paradigm seems amenable to some flexibility on the timing for the eating window while still having benefit.

“Self-selected eating windows are usually late,” Dr. Chow observed, and because compliance with a constrained eating window matters, it may be worth allowing people to choose whichever time window for eating works best for them.

“If you let people pick their eating window, they typically include dinner,” said Dr. Chow, who has run a small TRE study that showed this.

“To maximize the effects [of TRE] people should use the eating window that best fits their life,” agreed Kelsey Gabel, PhD, who also gave a TRE talk during the meeting. “Eating most of your [daily] calories first thing in the morning would have the best cardiometabolic benefit, but reduced adherence would mitigate the benefit,” said Dr. Gabel, a nutrition researcher at the University of Illinois.
 

‘Meeting people where they’re at’

“We can have a larger public health impact by meeting people where they’re at. People should position their eating window where it best fits so they can achieve calorie restriction without even knowing it,” Dr. Gabel advised.

She cited a report as evidence that most people prefer a later eating window. The report reviewed observational data from nearly 800,000 people who used either of two different TRE phone apps. The data showed that most people opted to start their daily eating during 11:00 AM-1:00 PM, and then stop during 6:00 PM-8:00 PM.

“TRE will not solve all of our obesity problems, but it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Gabel declared.

For people who include dinner at a typical evening time in their TRE window, a key message is that “dinner is your last food of the day. There’s no snacking later,” said Dr. Chow.

“The biggest challenge is adherence,” said Dr. Peterson. “Fewer people want to do TRE than you think. We know that calorie restriction works. We just need a way for people to do it,” and for at least some people, TRE is that way. While no evidence clearly shows that 8 hours is the best eating-window duration, “we think 8 hours is a good sweet-spot for motivated people,” she said.
 

Sparser data on TRE in people with T2D

Fewer studies have examined the impact of TRE on glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and related effects in people with type 2 diabetes. According to Dr. Peterson, published reports currently include two randomized controlled studies and three single-arm studies in people with type 2 diabetes and an additional two studies in people with prediabetes.

The largest of these reports randomized 120 adults in China with type 2 diabetes and overweight to TRE using a 10-hour eating window (8:00 AM-6:00 PM) or unrestricted eating for 12 weeks. By the end of the study, those on the TRE regimen had an average reduction in their hemoglobin A1c from baseline that was 0.88 percentage points greater than among the controls, and the TRE arm had also lost an average of nearly 2.15 kg more from baseline than the controls.

Dr. Peterson highlighted the importance of expanding research using TRE in people with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gabel report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chow has received research support from Dexcom.

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

A new lawsuit from a woman with type 2 diabetes alleges that the makers of the drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro did not provide adequate warnings for the severity of stomach problems caused by the popular medicines.

The two drugs, which are Food and Drug Administration approved to treat type 2 diabetes, have become well known for their weight loss properties. Ozempic is made by Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk, and Mounjaro is made by Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Co.

In the lawsuit, Jaclyn Bjorklund, 44, of Louisiana, asserts that she was “severely injured” after using Ozempic and Mounjaro and that the pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the drugs’ risk of causing vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

The prescribing labels for Mounjaro and Ozempic state that each “delays gastric emptying” and warn of the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions. The prescribing labels for both drugs state that the most common side effects include vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain. The Ozempic label does not mention gastroparesis, and the Mounjaro label states that the drug has not been studied in people with the condition and is therefore not recommended for people who have it. 

Ms. Bjorklund has not been diagnosed with gastroparesis, but her symptoms are “indicative of” the condition, her lawyer, Paul Pennock, told NBC News.

Ms. Bjorklund used Ozempic for more than 1 year, and in July 2023 switched to Mounjaro, the lawsuit states. The document, posted on her law firm’s website, details that using the drugs resulted in “severe vomiting, stomach pain, gastrointestinal burning, being hospitalized for stomach issues on several occasions including visits to the emergency room, [and] teeth falling out due to excessive vomiting, requiring additional medications to alleviate her excessive vomiting, and throwing up whole food hours after eating.”

Novo Nordisk spokesperson Natalia Salomao told NBC News that patient safety is “of utmost importance to Novo Nordisk,” and she also noted that gastroparesis is a known risk for people with diabetes. The Food and Drug Administration declined to comment on the case, and Eli Lilly did not immediately respond to a request for comment, NBC News reported.
 

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

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Consuming a higher percentage of calories from added sugars is linked with a higher prevalence of kidney stones, new research suggests.

Though added sugars have been linked with multiple poor health outcomes, their link with kidney stones has been unclear.

Added sugars are sugars or caloric sweeteners added to foods or drinks during processing or preparation to add flavor or shelf life. They do not include natural sugars such as lactose in milk and fructose in fruits.

Researchers, led by Shan Yin, a urologist at Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, in Nanchong, China, compared the added-sugar intake by quartiles in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2018.

A total of 28,303 adults were included in this study, with an average age of 48. Women who consumed less than 600 or more than 3,500 kcal or men who consumed less than 800 or more than 4,200 kcal were excluded.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, race, education, income, physical activity, and marital, employment, and smoking status.

Compared with the first quartile of percentage added-sugar calorie intake, the population in the fourth quartile, with the highest added sugar intake, had a higher prevalence of kidney stones (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.65).

Compared with the group with fewer than 5% of calories from added sugar, the group that consumed at least 25% of calories from added sugar had nearly twice the prevalence of kidney stones (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.52-2.32).

Findings were published online in Frontiers in Nutrition.

“By identifying this association, policymakers and health professionals can emphasize the need for public health initiatives to reduce added sugar consumption and promote healthy dietary habits,” the authors write.
 

Added sugar in the U.S. diet

Sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and energy and sports drinks account for 34.4% of added sugars in the American diet. Previous studies have shown the relationship between consuming sugar-sweetened beverages and a higher risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, diseases that often co-occur with kidney stones.

Researchers note that even though most added sugars in the United States come from sugar-sweetened beverages, it’s unclear whether the association between added sugars and kidney stones is caused by the beverages or other sources. For instance, fructose intake has been found to be independently associated with kidney stones.

How much is too much?

The recommended upper limit on added sugar is controversial and varies widely by health organization. The American Heart Association says daily average intake from added sugars should be no more than 150 kcal for adult males (about 9 teaspoons) and no more than 100 kcal for women (about 6 teaspoons). The Institute of Medicine allows up to 25% of calories to be consumed from added sugars. The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and World Health Organization set 10% of calories as the recommended upper limit.

Further investigating what causes kidney stones is critical as kidney stones are common worldwide, affecting about 1 in 10 people in the United States alone, and occurrence is increasing. Kidney stones have a high recurrence rate – about half of people who get them have a second episode within 10 years, the authors note.

The researchers acknowledge that because participants self-reported food intake, there is the potential for recall bias. Additionally, because of the cross-sectional design, the researchers were not able to determine whether sugar intake or kidney stone occurrence came first.

This work was supported by the Doctoral Fund Project of North Sichuan Medical College. The authors declare no relevant financial relationships.

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

Skin reactions at insulin pump infusion sites are common among people with type 1 diabetes who use the devices and can lead to delivery failure, new research suggests.
 

Insulin pump use is increasingly common, but many patients experience infusion-site failure that in some cases leads to discontinuation. In a novel investigation, researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle, used biopsies and noninvasive imaging to compare insulin pump sites with control sites in 30 patients. Several differences were found at pump sites in comparison with control sites, including fibrosis, inflammation, eosinophils, and increased vessel density.

“These findings support allergic sensitization as a potentially common reaction at [insulin pump] sites. The leading candidates causing this include insulin preservatives, plastic materials, and adhesive glue used in device manufacturing,” wrote Andrea Kalus, MD, of the university’s dermatology division, and colleagues. The findings were published recently in Diabetes Care.

The inflammatory response, they wrote, “may result in tissue changes responsible for the infusion-site failures seen frequently in clinical practice.”

Such infusion site problems represent an “Achilles heel” of these otherwise highly beneficial devices, lead author Irl Hirsch, MD, professor of medicine in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition, said in a statement. “It doesn’t really matter how good the technology is. We still don’t understand what is happening with the infusion sites, much less to [be able to] fix it.”
 

Significant differences between pump and nonpump sites

In the cross-sectional study, Dr. Kalus and colleagues used noninvasive optical coherence tomography (OCT) immediately prior to performing punch biopsies at three sites: the site currently in active use, the “recovery site” used 3-5 days prior to the procedures, and control sites never used for pump infusion. Punch biopsies were also performed at those sites.

The mean age of the patients was 48.3 years, the mean diabetes duration was 30.4 years, and the mean duration of pump use was 15.8 years. Nearly all patients (93.3%) reported itchiness at the site, and 76.7% reported skin redness.

Of the 25 patients for whom OCT imaging was successful, statistical analysis showed significant differences in vascular area density and the optical attenuation coefficient, a surrogate for skin inflammation, between the pump and control sites and between recovery sites and current pump sites. The greater vessel density is likely a result of injury and repair related to catheter insertion, the authors said.

In the biopsy samples, both current and recovery sites showed increased fibrosis, fibrin, inflammation, fat necrosis, vascularity, and eosinophils, compared with the control sites, but no significant differences were found between current and recovery sites.

Eosinophils: ‘The most surprising histologic finding’

Eosinophils were found in 73% of skin biopsy specimens from current sites and in 75% of specimens from recovery sites, compared with none from the control sites (for both, P < .01). In all study participants, eosinophils were found in at least one current and/or recovery infusion site deep in the dermis near the interface with fat. The number of eosinophils ranged from 0 to 31 per high-power field, with a median of 4.

The number of eosinophils didn’t vary by type of insulin or brand of pump, but higher counts were seen in those who had used pumps for less than 10 years, compared with more than 20 years (P = .02).

The prevalence and degree of eosinophils were “the most surprising histologic finding,” the authors wrote, adding that “eosinophils are not typically present as a component of resident inflammatory cells in the skin.”

While eosinophils may be present in normal wound healing, “the absolute number and density of eosinophil in these samples support a delayed-type hypersensitivity response, which is typically observed between 2 and 7 days after exposure to an allergen. ... Eosinophils are often correlated with symptoms of itchiness and likely explain the high percentage of participants who reported itchiness in this study,” Dr. Kalus and colleagues wrote.
 

Correlation found between inflammation and glycemic control

All participants used the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor as part of their usual care. Inflammation scores were positively correlated with insulin dose (P = .009) and were negatively correlated with time in range (P = .01).

No other OCT or biopsy findings differed by duration of pump use, previous use of animal insulin, or type of insulin.

The reason for these findings is unclear, Dr. Hirsch said. “How much was the catheter or the insulin causing the irritation around the sites? How much was it from the preservatives, or is this because of the insulin pump itself? All these questions need to be answered in future studies. ... The real goal of all of this is to minimize skin damage and improve the experience for our patients.”

The study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Hirsch reported grants and contracts from Insulet, Medtronic, and Dexcom outside the submitted work; consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, and Hagar outside the submitted work; and honoraria for lectures, presentations, participation on speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events as section editor for UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr. Kalus has no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

A pilot study suggests that kombucha consumption reduces blood glucose levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. The sample size was too small for statistical significance.

blanaru/iStock/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study at a single-center urban hospital system.
• A total of 12 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to consume 240 mL of either a kombucha product or placebo daily with dinner for 4 weeks.
• After an 8-week washout, they were switched to the other product for another 4 weeks.
• Fasting blood glucose levels were self-determined at baseline and at 1 and 4 weeks, and questionnaires were used to assess secondary health outcomes.
• Questionnaire data were analyzed for all 12 participants, but only 7 who completed the study were included in the analysis of fasting blood glucose.

TAKEAWAY:

• Kombucha significantly lowered average fasting blood glucose levels at week 4, compared with baseline (164 vs. 116 mg/dL; P = .035), while the placebo was not associated with statistically significant change (162 vs. 141 mg/dL; P = .078).
• Among just the five participants with baseline fasting glucose > 130 mg/dL, kombucha consumption was associated with a mean fasting blood glucose decrease of 74.3 mg/dL, significantly greater than the 15.9 mg/dL drop with placebo (P = .017).
• On cultural enumeration, the kombucha contained mostly lactic acid bacteria, acetic acid bacteria, and yeast, with molds present.

IN PRACTICE:

“Kombucha is a growing part of the beverage market in the United States and the world, driven, in part, by the wide range of suggested health benefits. However, nearly all of these benefits are based on in vitro or animal studies, and human clinical trials are needed to validate biological outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chagai Mendelson, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. It was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

• The number of participants was small, and attrition was high.
• Glucose levels were self-reported.
• Only one kombucha was studied.

DISCLOSURES:

One author is a cofounder of Synbiotic Health and another has a financial interest in the company. The other authors have no disclosures. Kombucha and placebo drinks were donated by Craft Kombucha, but the company did not have access to the data, and no authors have financial ties with that company.

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

TOPLINE:

A pilot study suggests that kombucha consumption reduces blood glucose levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. The sample size was too small for statistical significance.

blanaru/iStock/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study at a single-center urban hospital system.
• A total of 12 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to consume 240 mL of either a kombucha product or placebo daily with dinner for 4 weeks.
• After an 8-week washout, they were switched to the other product for another 4 weeks.
• Fasting blood glucose levels were self-determined at baseline and at 1 and 4 weeks, and questionnaires were used to assess secondary health outcomes.
• Questionnaire data were analyzed for all 12 participants, but only 7 who completed the study were included in the analysis of fasting blood glucose.

TAKEAWAY:

• Kombucha significantly lowered average fasting blood glucose levels at week 4, compared with baseline (164 vs. 116 mg/dL; P = .035), while the placebo was not associated with statistically significant change (162 vs. 141 mg/dL; P = .078).
• Among just the five participants with baseline fasting glucose > 130 mg/dL, kombucha consumption was associated with a mean fasting blood glucose decrease of 74.3 mg/dL, significantly greater than the 15.9 mg/dL drop with placebo (P = .017).
• On cultural enumeration, the kombucha contained mostly lactic acid bacteria, acetic acid bacteria, and yeast, with molds present.

IN PRACTICE:

“Kombucha is a growing part of the beverage market in the United States and the world, driven, in part, by the wide range of suggested health benefits. However, nearly all of these benefits are based on in vitro or animal studies, and human clinical trials are needed to validate biological outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chagai Mendelson, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. It was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

• The number of participants was small, and attrition was high.
• Glucose levels were self-reported.
• Only one kombucha was studied.

DISCLOSURES:

One author is a cofounder of Synbiotic Health and another has a financial interest in the company. The other authors have no disclosures. Kombucha and placebo drinks were donated by Craft Kombucha, but the company did not have access to the data, and no authors have financial ties with that company.

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

TOPLINE:

A pilot study suggests that kombucha consumption reduces blood glucose levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. The sample size was too small for statistical significance.

blanaru/iStock/Getty Images

METHODOLOGY:

• Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study at a single-center urban hospital system.
• A total of 12 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to consume 240 mL of either a kombucha product or placebo daily with dinner for 4 weeks.
• After an 8-week washout, they were switched to the other product for another 4 weeks.
• Fasting blood glucose levels were self-determined at baseline and at 1 and 4 weeks, and questionnaires were used to assess secondary health outcomes.
• Questionnaire data were analyzed for all 12 participants, but only 7 who completed the study were included in the analysis of fasting blood glucose.

TAKEAWAY:

• Kombucha significantly lowered average fasting blood glucose levels at week 4, compared with baseline (164 vs. 116 mg/dL; P = .035), while the placebo was not associated with statistically significant change (162 vs. 141 mg/dL; P = .078).
• Among just the five participants with baseline fasting glucose > 130 mg/dL, kombucha consumption was associated with a mean fasting blood glucose decrease of 74.3 mg/dL, significantly greater than the 15.9 mg/dL drop with placebo (P = .017).
• On cultural enumeration, the kombucha contained mostly lactic acid bacteria, acetic acid bacteria, and yeast, with molds present.

IN PRACTICE:

“Kombucha is a growing part of the beverage market in the United States and the world, driven, in part, by the wide range of suggested health benefits. However, nearly all of these benefits are based on in vitro or animal studies, and human clinical trials are needed to validate biological outcomes.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chagai Mendelson, of MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. It was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

LIMITATIONS:

• The number of participants was small, and attrition was high.
• Glucose levels were self-reported.
• Only one kombucha was studied.

DISCLOSURES:

One author is a cofounder of Synbiotic Health and another has a financial interest in the company. The other authors have no disclosures. Kombucha and placebo drinks were donated by Craft Kombucha, but the company did not have access to the data, and no authors have financial ties with that company.

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

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin after coronary stenting may be safer and more clinically effective than monotherapy with a high-intensity statin, suggests a “real-world” cohort study that is consistent with trial evidence.

In the observational study with more than 273,000 patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), risk for a broad composite clinical primary endpoint fell by one-fourth (P < .001) among those put on the two-drug regimen with a moderate-intensity statin, compared with those getting a high-intensity statin alone.

The dual-agent approach was also associated with a 15% drop in statin discontinuation and a 20% reduced risk for new-onset diabetes requiring medication (P < .001 for both benefits), reported investigators in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke at 3 years – replicated that of the randomized RACING trial conducted by many of the same researchers and published about a year ago in The Lancet.

RACING demonstrated that ezetimibe plus a moderate-intensity statin could be as effective as a high-intensity statin in patients with CV disease, “but have fewer side effects and better compliance,” Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Dr. Hong is senior author on the current observational study based on the CONNECT-DES registry, which compared rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day – used in RACING – with rosuvastatin 20 mg/day in a nationwide cohort of 72,050 patients.

“As we know, populations who are enrolled in randomized studies do not sufficiently represent real patients in practice,” he observed, “so we wanted to evaluate the generalizability of the RACING results in daily clinical practice.”

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said he likes studies that look at whether clinical trial results “play out in the real world,” as this one did. “They have largely replicated the results of the RACING trial,” suggesting the approach using a moderate-intensity statin “is the way to go,” Dr. Bhatt of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not affiliated with the current report, said in an interview. “In fact, the moderate-intensity combination regimen was actually better in this study.”

He said the observed reduction in new-onset diabetes with the moderate-intensity statin approach is also important. “There is a link between high-dose statins and diabetes. So, if given the choice, if you can get the benefits from a cardiovascular perspective with a lower risk of diabetes, it makes sense to use the combination therapy.”

Dr. Bhatt said he had been using high-intensity statin monotherapy in his high-risk patients, but RACING made him reconsider the value of moderate-dose statin combination therapy. “Going with lower doses of two drugs instead of high doses of one drug minimizes side effects and, in some cases, can even enhance efficacy – so this is not an unreasonable paradigm.”

In the current cohort study of patients prescribed rosuvastatin after DES implantation, 10,794 received rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day, and 61,256 were put on rosuvastatin 20 mg/day.

Hazard ratio risk reductions with the dual-agent lipid-lowering therapy approach, compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, were more favorable for the primary composite clinical endpoint and important secondary events:

• HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.79; P < .001) for CV death, MI, coronary artery revascularization, HF, or stroke at 3 years.
• HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P = .001) for statin discontinuation.
• HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001) for new-onset diabetes requiring medication.

But HRs for rhabdomyolysis, cholecystectomy, or a new cancer diagnosis did not indicate significant differences between the two groups.

“Now that there is evidence to support the favorable clinical outcomes of combination lipid-lowering therapy with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe” for secondary prevention from both RACING and a study reflecting daily clinical practice, Dr. Hong said, “physicians may feel more comfortable with this approach.”

The registry analysis “is remarkable not only for validating the results of the RACING trial in routine clinical practice in a high-risk secondary prevention population, but also for its innovative methodology,” states an accompanying editorial by Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center, University of California, San Diego.

Use of such a large single-payer database in their study “affords even greater external validity to the findings, complementing the internal validity of the randomized RACING trial,” Dr. Ben-Yehuda writes.

The rationale for combination therapy is strong, but additional data would be helpful, particularly for informing guidelines, he continues. “A pragmatic trial randomizing a broad racial and ethnic group of patients to low-dose statin,” such as a starting dose of 10 mg/day atorvastatin or 5 mg/day rosuvastatin “plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin alone would provide much needed data to help guide lipid-lowering therapy for millions of patients and hopefully increase persistence on therapy.”

The study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Hong and Dr. Ben-Yehuda have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt has previously disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin after coronary stenting may be safer and more clinically effective than monotherapy with a high-intensity statin, suggests a “real-world” cohort study that is consistent with trial evidence.

In the observational study with more than 273,000 patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), risk for a broad composite clinical primary endpoint fell by one-fourth (P < .001) among those put on the two-drug regimen with a moderate-intensity statin, compared with those getting a high-intensity statin alone.

The dual-agent approach was also associated with a 15% drop in statin discontinuation and a 20% reduced risk for new-onset diabetes requiring medication (P < .001 for both benefits), reported investigators in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke at 3 years – replicated that of the randomized RACING trial conducted by many of the same researchers and published about a year ago in The Lancet.

RACING demonstrated that ezetimibe plus a moderate-intensity statin could be as effective as a high-intensity statin in patients with CV disease, “but have fewer side effects and better compliance,” Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Dr. Hong is senior author on the current observational study based on the CONNECT-DES registry, which compared rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day – used in RACING – with rosuvastatin 20 mg/day in a nationwide cohort of 72,050 patients.

“As we know, populations who are enrolled in randomized studies do not sufficiently represent real patients in practice,” he observed, “so we wanted to evaluate the generalizability of the RACING results in daily clinical practice.”

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said he likes studies that look at whether clinical trial results “play out in the real world,” as this one did. “They have largely replicated the results of the RACING trial,” suggesting the approach using a moderate-intensity statin “is the way to go,” Dr. Bhatt of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not affiliated with the current report, said in an interview. “In fact, the moderate-intensity combination regimen was actually better in this study.”

He said the observed reduction in new-onset diabetes with the moderate-intensity statin approach is also important. “There is a link between high-dose statins and diabetes. So, if given the choice, if you can get the benefits from a cardiovascular perspective with a lower risk of diabetes, it makes sense to use the combination therapy.”

Dr. Bhatt said he had been using high-intensity statin monotherapy in his high-risk patients, but RACING made him reconsider the value of moderate-dose statin combination therapy. “Going with lower doses of two drugs instead of high doses of one drug minimizes side effects and, in some cases, can even enhance efficacy – so this is not an unreasonable paradigm.”

In the current cohort study of patients prescribed rosuvastatin after DES implantation, 10,794 received rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day, and 61,256 were put on rosuvastatin 20 mg/day.

Hazard ratio risk reductions with the dual-agent lipid-lowering therapy approach, compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, were more favorable for the primary composite clinical endpoint and important secondary events:

• HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.79; P < .001) for CV death, MI, coronary artery revascularization, HF, or stroke at 3 years.
• HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P = .001) for statin discontinuation.
• HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001) for new-onset diabetes requiring medication.

But HRs for rhabdomyolysis, cholecystectomy, or a new cancer diagnosis did not indicate significant differences between the two groups.

“Now that there is evidence to support the favorable clinical outcomes of combination lipid-lowering therapy with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe” for secondary prevention from both RACING and a study reflecting daily clinical practice, Dr. Hong said, “physicians may feel more comfortable with this approach.”

The registry analysis “is remarkable not only for validating the results of the RACING trial in routine clinical practice in a high-risk secondary prevention population, but also for its innovative methodology,” states an accompanying editorial by Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center, University of California, San Diego.

Use of such a large single-payer database in their study “affords even greater external validity to the findings, complementing the internal validity of the randomized RACING trial,” Dr. Ben-Yehuda writes.

The rationale for combination therapy is strong, but additional data would be helpful, particularly for informing guidelines, he continues. “A pragmatic trial randomizing a broad racial and ethnic group of patients to low-dose statin,” such as a starting dose of 10 mg/day atorvastatin or 5 mg/day rosuvastatin “plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin alone would provide much needed data to help guide lipid-lowering therapy for millions of patients and hopefully increase persistence on therapy.”

The study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Hong and Dr. Ben-Yehuda have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt has previously disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The combination of ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin after coronary stenting may be safer and more clinically effective than monotherapy with a high-intensity statin, suggests a “real-world” cohort study that is consistent with trial evidence.

In the observational study with more than 273,000 patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), risk for a broad composite clinical primary endpoint fell by one-fourth (P < .001) among those put on the two-drug regimen with a moderate-intensity statin, compared with those getting a high-intensity statin alone.

The dual-agent approach was also associated with a 15% drop in statin discontinuation and a 20% reduced risk for new-onset diabetes requiring medication (P < .001 for both benefits), reported investigators in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The study’s primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke at 3 years – replicated that of the randomized RACING trial conducted by many of the same researchers and published about a year ago in The Lancet.

RACING demonstrated that ezetimibe plus a moderate-intensity statin could be as effective as a high-intensity statin in patients with CV disease, “but have fewer side effects and better compliance,” Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

Dr. Hong is senior author on the current observational study based on the CONNECT-DES registry, which compared rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day – used in RACING – with rosuvastatin 20 mg/day in a nationwide cohort of 72,050 patients.

“As we know, populations who are enrolled in randomized studies do not sufficiently represent real patients in practice,” he observed, “so we wanted to evaluate the generalizability of the RACING results in daily clinical practice.”

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, said he likes studies that look at whether clinical trial results “play out in the real world,” as this one did. “They have largely replicated the results of the RACING trial,” suggesting the approach using a moderate-intensity statin “is the way to go,” Dr. Bhatt of Mount Sinai Health System, New York, who was not affiliated with the current report, said in an interview. “In fact, the moderate-intensity combination regimen was actually better in this study.”

He said the observed reduction in new-onset diabetes with the moderate-intensity statin approach is also important. “There is a link between high-dose statins and diabetes. So, if given the choice, if you can get the benefits from a cardiovascular perspective with a lower risk of diabetes, it makes sense to use the combination therapy.”

Dr. Bhatt said he had been using high-intensity statin monotherapy in his high-risk patients, but RACING made him reconsider the value of moderate-dose statin combination therapy. “Going with lower doses of two drugs instead of high doses of one drug minimizes side effects and, in some cases, can even enhance efficacy – so this is not an unreasonable paradigm.”

In the current cohort study of patients prescribed rosuvastatin after DES implantation, 10,794 received rosuvastatin 10 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day, and 61,256 were put on rosuvastatin 20 mg/day.

Hazard ratio risk reductions with the dual-agent lipid-lowering therapy approach, compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, were more favorable for the primary composite clinical endpoint and important secondary events:

• HR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.79; P < .001) for CV death, MI, coronary artery revascularization, HF, or stroke at 3 years.
• HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94; P = .001) for statin discontinuation.
• HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001) for new-onset diabetes requiring medication.

But HRs for rhabdomyolysis, cholecystectomy, or a new cancer diagnosis did not indicate significant differences between the two groups.

“Now that there is evidence to support the favorable clinical outcomes of combination lipid-lowering therapy with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe” for secondary prevention from both RACING and a study reflecting daily clinical practice, Dr. Hong said, “physicians may feel more comfortable with this approach.”

The registry analysis “is remarkable not only for validating the results of the RACING trial in routine clinical practice in a high-risk secondary prevention population, but also for its innovative methodology,” states an accompanying editorial by Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center, University of California, San Diego.

Use of such a large single-payer database in their study “affords even greater external validity to the findings, complementing the internal validity of the randomized RACING trial,” Dr. Ben-Yehuda writes.

The rationale for combination therapy is strong, but additional data would be helpful, particularly for informing guidelines, he continues. “A pragmatic trial randomizing a broad racial and ethnic group of patients to low-dose statin,” such as a starting dose of 10 mg/day atorvastatin or 5 mg/day rosuvastatin “plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin alone would provide much needed data to help guide lipid-lowering therapy for millions of patients and hopefully increase persistence on therapy.”

The study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Hong and Dr. Ben-Yehuda have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt has previously disclosed grants and/or personal fees from many companies; personal fees from WebMD and other publications or organizations; and having other relationships with Medscape Cardiology and other publications or organizations.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.