Diabetes

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men and women with prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and, notably, diagnosed diabetes were at higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas those with low-normal A1c were at lower risk of this in a large, 12-year observational study of UK Biobank data.

The results highlight “the need for strategies to reduce risk of CVD across the [glycemic] spectrum,” Christopher T. Rentsch, MPH, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in the The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.

The findings suggest “that excess [CVD] risks in both men and women were largely explained by modifiable factors and could be ameliorated by attention to weight reduction strategies and greater use of antihypertensive and statin medications.

“Addressing these risk factors could reduce sex disparities in [glycemia]-related risks of CVD,” according to the researchers.

After the researchers accounted for age, the absolute rate of CVD events was higher among men than women (16.9 vs. 9.1 events per 1,000 person-years); however, the relative risk was higher among women than men.

Compared with men, women were more likely to have obesity (63% vs. 53%) and were less likely to be using antihypertensive medications (64% vs. 69%) or a statin (71% vs. 75%).

“This is the largest study to date to investigate sex differences in the risk of CVD across the glycemic spectrum,” the researchers noted.
 

“The lower the better”

“We uncovered compelling evidence that for blood sugar levels within the ‘normal’ range, it was a case of ‘the lower the better’ in protecting against heart disease,” Dr. Rentsch, assistant professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told this news organization.

Compared with people with normal blood glucose levels, those with lower than normal levels were at 10% lower risk of developing any form of heart disease, he noted.

The study findings “support women being proactive in asking about medications like statins and antihypertensives as an option to help lower their [CVD] risk, if clinically appropriate,” Dr. Rentsch added.

“We found that men and women with diagnosed diabetes remained at elevated risk for three types of heart disease – coronary artery disease, stroke, and heart failure – even after accounting for a large number of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics,” he pointed out.

However, “total cholesterol, family history of CVD, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and C-reactive protein had relatively little impact on explaining the risk of heart disease associated with blood sugar.”

“It is well established that being overweight can lead to higher blood sugar levels as well as higher blood pressure, these being factors that contribute to higher risk of heart attack and stroke,” Robert Storey, DM, professor of cardiology, University of Sheffield (England), told the UK Science Media Centre.

“This very large UK Biobank study,” he said, “shows that the higher heart risk associated with blood sugar can be detected at a very early stage along the path towards the abnormally high blood sugar levels associated with diabetes.

“The study provides support for a strategy of assessing cardiovascular risk in people who are overweight, including assessment of blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels, all of which can be effectively managed to markedly reduce the risk of future heart attack and stroke,” according to Dr. Storey.
 

More than 400,000 men, women

The researchers enrolled men and women aged 40-69 between 2006 to 2010 who were living in England, Scotland, and Wales. After excluding people with type 1 diabetes or those whose A1c data were missing, the current study included 427,435 people (46% of whom were men).

The participants were classified as having low-normal A1c (< 35 mmol/mol or < 5.5%), normal A1c (35-41 mmol/mol or 5.5%-5.9%), prediabetes (42-47 mmol/mol or 6.0%-6.4%), undiagnosed diabetes (≥ 48 mmol/mol or ≥ 6.5%), or diagnosed type 2 diabetes (medical history and in receipt of glucose-lowering medication).

The researchers determined the incidence of six CVD outcomes during a median 11.8-year follow-up: coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and heart failure.

Few participants (5%) had any of these outcomes prior to study enrollment.

During the follow-up, there were 51,288 incident CVD events.

After adjustment for age, compared to having normal A1c, having prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes was associated with an increased risk of CVD for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30-1.47).

Among individuals with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, the age-adjusted risk of CVD was greater for women (HR, 2.00) than for men (HR, 1.55).

After further adjustment for clinical and lifestyle factors, especially obesity and antihypertensive or statin use, the risk of CVD decreased and became similar among men and women. The fully adjusted HR for CVD was 1.17 for women and 1.06 for men with diagnosed diabetes.

Compared with having normal A1c, women and men with low-normal A1c were at decreased risk of CVD (HR, 0.86 for both).

The study was funded by Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Rentsch and Dr. Storey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The disclosures of the other study authors are listed in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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

Should we be exercising in the morning or afternoon? Before a meal or after a meal?

Popular media outlets, researchers, and clinicians seem to love these debates. I hate them. For me, it’s a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when people argue two sides as if only one option exists. A winner must be crowned, and a loser exists. But in reality, a gray zone exists, and/or a number of options are available. For me, exercise at any point of the day is a win.

Some but not all research suggests that morning fasted exercise may be the best time of day and condition to work out for weight control and training adaptations. Morning exercise may be a bit better for logistical reasons if you like to get up early. Some of us are indeed early chronotypes who rise early, get as much done as we can, including all our fitness and work-related activities, and then head to bed early (for me that is about 10 PM). Getting an early morning workout seems to fit with our schedules as morning larks.

But if you are a late-day chronotype, early exercise may not be in sync with your low morning energy levels or your preference for leisure-time activities later in the day. And lots of people with diabetes prefer to eat and then exercise. Late chronotypes are less physically active in general, compared with early chronotypes, and those who train in the morning tend to have better training adherence and expend more energy overall throughout the day. According to Dr. Normand Boulé from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, who presented on the topic of exercise time of day at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, morning exercise in the fasted state tends to be associated with higher rates of fat oxidation, better weight control, and better skeletal muscle adaptations over time, compared with exercise performed later in the day. Dr Boulé also proposed that fasted exercise might be superior for training adaptations and long-term glycemia if you have type 2 diabetes.

But the argument for morning-only exercise falls short when we look specifically at postmeal glycemia, according to Dr. Jenna Gillen from the University of Toronto, who faced off against Dr. Boulé at a debate at the meeting and also publishes on the topic. She pointed out that mild to moderate intensity exercising done soon after meals typically results in fewer glucose spikes after meals in people with diabetes, and her argument is supported by at least one recent meta-analysis where postmeal walking was best for improving glycemia in those with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

The notion that postmeal or afternoon exercise is best for people with type 2 diabetes is also supported by a recent reexamination of the original Look AHEAD Trial of over 2,400 adults with type 2 diabetes, wherein the role of lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular outcomes was the original goal. In this recent secondary analysis of the Look AHEAD Trial, those most active in the afternoon (between 1:43 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.) had the greatest improvements in their overall glucose control after 1 year of the intensive lifestyle intervention, compared with exercise at other times of day. Afternoon exercisers were also more likely to have complete “remission” of their diabetes, as defined by no longer needing any glucose-lowering agents to control their glucose levels. But this was not a study that was designed for determining whether exercise time of day matters for glycemia because the participants were not randomly assigned to a set time of day for their activity, and glycemic control was not the primary endpoint (cardiovascular events were).

But hold on a minute. I said this was a false-dichotomy argument. It is. Just because it may or may not be “better” for your glucose to exercise in the morning vs. afternoon, if you have diabetes, it doesn’t mean you have to choose one or the other. You could choose neither (okay, that’s bad), both, or you could alternate between the two. For me this argument is like saying; “There only one time of day to save money”; “to tell a joke”; “to eat a meal” (okay, that’s another useless debate); or “do my laundry” (my mother once told me it’s technically cheaper after 6 p.m.!).

I live with diabetes, and I take insulin. I like how morning exercise in the form of a run with my dog wakes me up, sets me up for the day with positive thoughts, helps generate lots of creative ideas, and perhaps more importantly for me, it tends not to result in hypoglycemia because my insulin on board is lowest then.

Exercise later in the day is tricky when taking insulin because it tends to result in a higher insulin “potency effect” with prandial insulins. However, I still like midday activity and late-day exercise. For example, taking an activity break after lunch blunts the rise in my glucose and breaks up my prolonged sitting time in the office. After-dinner exercise allows me to spend a little more time with my wife, dog, or friends outdoors as the hot summer day begins to cool off. On Monday nights, I play basketball because that’s the only time we can book the gymnasium and that may not end until 9:45 p.m. (15 minutes before I want to go to bed; if you remember, I am a lark). That can result in two frustrating things related to my diabetes: It can cause an immediate rise in my glucose because of a competitive stress response and then a drop in my glucose overnight when I’m sleeping. But I still do it. I know that the training I’m doing at any point of the day will benefit me in lots of little ways, and I think we all need to take as many opportunities to be physically active as we possibly can. My kids and I coin this our daily “fitness opportunities,” and it does not matter to me if its morning, noon, or night!

It’s time to make the headlines and arguments stop. There is no wrong time of day to exercise. At least not in my opinion.
 

Dr. Riddle is a full professor in the school of kinesiology and health science at York University and senior scientist at LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology, both in Toronto. He has disclosed financial relationships with Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Indigo Diabetes, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Supersapiens, and Zucara Therapeutics.

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

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1994, metformin has been the preferred first-line glucose-lowering agent for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) owing to its effectiveness, low hypoglycemia risk, weight neutrality, long clinical track record of safety, and affordability. However, the advent of newer glucose-lowering agents with evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) and renal benefits calls into question whether metformin should continue to be the initial pharmacotherapy for all patients with T2D. To help determine whether metformin has been “dethroned” as first-line treatment for T2D, here is a brief review of recent evidence and current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular outcome trials transform standard of care

In 2008, the FDA issued guidance to industry to ensure that CV risk is more thoroughly addressed during development of T2D therapies. This guidance document required dedicated trials to establish CV safety of new glucose-lowering therapies. Findings from subsequent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) and subsequent large renal and heart failure (HF) outcome trials have since prompted frequent and substantial updates to major guidelines. On the basis of recent evidence from CVOT and renal trials, contemporary clinical practice guidelines have transitioned from a traditional glucocentric treatment approach to a holistic management approach that emphasizes organ protection through heart-kidney-metabolic risk reduction.

Per the 2008 FDA guidance, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were evaluated in large dedicated CVOTs. Findings from several CVOTs established GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor CV safety, and unexpectedly demonstrated reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo. The LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials were the first CVOTs to report cardioprotective benefits of the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, respectively. The LEADER trial reported a 13% significant relative risk reduction for its primary composite MACE outcome, and the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial similarly reported a 14% relative risk reduction for MACE. After CVOTs on other GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reported CV benefit, clinical practice guidelines began to recommend use of these agents in at-risk patients to mitigate CV risk.

During the period when most CVOTs were designed and conducted, a majority of trial participants were receiving metformin at baseline. Inclusion of a small subset of metformin-naive participants in these trials allowed for several post hoc and meta-analyses investigating the impact of background metformin use on the overall CV benefits reported. Depending on the trial, baseline metformin use in large GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOTs ranged from 66% to 81%. For instance, 76% of participants in the LEADER trial were receiving metformin at baseline, but a post hoc analysis found no heterogeneity for the observed CV benefit based on background metformin use. Similarly, a subgroup analysis of pooled data from the SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER 6 trials of injectable and oral formulations of semaglutide, respectively, reported similar CV outcomes for participants, regardless of concomitant metformin use. When looking at the GLP-1 receptor agonist class overall, a meta-analysis of seven CVOTs, which included participants with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and those with multiple ASCVD risk factors, concluded that GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy reduced the overall incidence of MACE in participants not receiving concomitant metformin at baseline.

Similar analyses have examined the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes with SGLT2 inhibitors. An analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME found that empagliflozin improved CV outcomes and reduced mortality irrespective of background metformin, sulfonylurea, or insulin use. Of note, this analysis suggested a greater risk reduction for incident or worsening nephropathy in patients not on concomitant metformin (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.59; P = .01), when compared with those taking metformin at baseline (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58-0.79; P = .01). In addition, a meta-analysis of six large outcome trials found consistent benefits of SGLT2 inhibition on CV, kidney, and mortality outcomes regardless of background metformin treatment. Therefore, although CVOTs on GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors were not designed to assess the impact of background metformin use on CV outcomes, available evidence supports the CV benefits of these agents independent of metformin use.
 

Individualizing care to attain cardiorenal-metabolic goals

Three dedicated SGLT2 inhibitor renal outcome trials have been published to date: CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and EMPA-KIDNEY. All three studies confirmed the positive secondary renal outcomes observed in SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs: reduced progression of kidney disease, HF-associated hospital admissions, and CV-related death. The observed renal and CV benefits from the CREDENCE trial were consistent across different levels of kidney function. Similarly, a meta-analysis of five SGLT2 inhibitor trials of patients with HF demonstrated a decreased risk for CV-related death and admission for HF, irrespective of baseline heart function. The ongoing FLOW is the first dedicated kidney-outcome trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide) in slowing the progression and worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with T2D.

As previously noted, findings from the LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials demonstrated the beneficial effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors not only on MACE but also on secondary HF and kidney disease outcomes. These findings have supported a series of dedicated HF and kidney outcome trials further informing the standard of care for patients with these key comorbidities. Indeed, the American Diabetes Association’s 2023 Standards of Care in Diabetes updated its recommendations and algorithm for the use of glucose-lowering medications in the management of T2D. The current ADA recommendations stress cardiorenal risk reduction while concurrently achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight management goals. On the basis of evolving outcome trial data, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors with evidence of benefit are recommended for patients with established or at high risk for ASCVD. Further, the Standards preferentially recommend SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HF and/or CKD. Because evidence suggests no heterogeneity of benefit based on hemoglobin A1c for MACE outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists and no heterogeneity of benefit for HF or CKD benefits with SGLT2 inhibitors, these agents are recommended for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of the need to lower glucose.

The 2023 update to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm similarly recommends the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors to improve cardiorenal outcomes. To further emphasize the importance of prescribing agents with proven organ-protective benefits, the AACE consensus statement provides a complications-centric algorithm to guide therapeutic decisions for risk reduction in patients with key comorbidities (for instance, ASCVD, HF, CKD) and a separate glucocentric algorithm to guide selection and intensification of glucose-lowering agents in patients without key comorbidities to meet individualized glycemic targets. Within the complications-centric algorithm, AACE recommends GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment for cardiorenal risk reduction regardless of background metformin use or A1c level.

In addition to the emphasis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for organ protection, guidelines now recommend SGLT2 inhibitors as the standard-of-care therapy in patients with T2D and CKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and irrespective of ejection fraction or a diagnosis of diabetes in the setting of HF. Overall, a common thread within current guidelines is the importance of individualized therapy based on patient- and medication-specific factors.
 

Optimizing guideline-directed medical therapy

Results from the DISCOVER trial found that GLP-1 receptor agonist and SGLT2 inhibitor use was less likely in the key patient subgroups most likely to benefit from therapy, including patients with peripheral artery disease and CKD. Factors contributing to underutilization of newer cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering therapies range from cost and access barriers to clinician-level barriers (for example, lack of knowledge on CKD, lack of familiarity with CKD practice guidelines). Addressing these issues and helping patients work through financial and other access barriers is essential to optimize the utilization of these therapies and improve cardiorenal and metabolic outcomes.

So, has metformin been “dethroned” as a first-line therapy for T2D? As is often the case in medicine, the answer depends on the individual patient and clinical situation. Metformin remains an important first-line treatment in combination with lifestyle interventions to help patients with T2D without key cardiorenal comorbidities achieve individualized glycemic targets. However, based on evidence demonstrating cardiorenal protective benefits and improved glycemia and weight loss, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors may be considered as first-line treatment for patients with T2D with or at high risk for ASCVD, HF, or CKD, regardless of the need for additional glucose-lowering agents and independent of background metformin. Ultimately, the choice of first-line therapy for patients with T2D should be informed by individualized treatment goals, preferences, and cost-related access. Continued efforts to increase patient access to GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors as first-line treatment when indicated are essential to ensure optimal treatment and outcomes.

Dr. Neumiller is professor, department of pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane. He disclosed ties with Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Alicic is clinical professor, department of medicine, University of Washington; and associate director of research, Inland Northwest Washington, Providence St. Joseph Health, Spokane. She disclosed ties with Providence St. Joseph Health, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Bayer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health benefits of prolonged “water fasting” (zero calories) or Buchinger fasting (200-300 calories/day) don’t last, according to authors of a review of eight studies.

Five days of fasting lowered weight by about 6%, but this weight was regained after 3 months of regular eating, the investigators found. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews.

“Water fasting led to improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar levels, but these were short-lived,” senior author Krista A. Varady, PhD, told this news organization.

“Levels returned to baseline ... quickly after participants started eating. Most benefits disappeared in 3-4 months,” said Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

“My overall conclusion,” she said, “is that I guess you could try it, but it just seems like a lot of work, and all those metabolic benefits disappear. I would encourage someone hoping to lose weight to try intermittent fasting instead of water fasting, because there’s a lot more data to show it can help with weight management.

“People should consult their doctor if they have diabetes or any other major obesity-related conditions before doing water fasting,” Dr. Varady cautioned.

“Healthy people with obesity can probably fast safely for 5 days on their own (if they don’t have any other conditions). However, no one should undertake one of these fasts for more than 5 days without medical supervision,” she stressed.
 

Eight studies of water and Buchinger fasting

Although several favorable effects of prolonged fasting have been observed, benefits must be weighed against risks, Dr. Varady and her coauthors wrote.

Most medically supervised fasting programs have reported only minor adverse events, which included hunger, headaches, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and fatigue. However, more severe events have been documented, including edema, abnormal results on liver function tests, decreased bone density, and metabolic acidosis.

The researchers aimed to determine the effect of prolonged fasting on weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and glycemic control, as well as safety and the effects of refeeding.

They examined two types of prolonged fasting: water fasting and Buchinger fasting, which involves consuming 250 mL of fruit or vegetable juice for lunch and 250 mL of soup for dinner every day of the 5- to 20-day fast.

Buchinger fasting is popular in Central Europe. Water fasting “institutes” exist in the United States, such as one in California, Dr. Varady noted.

The researchers excluded fasting during Ramadan or fasting practiced by Seventh Day Adventists.

They identified four studies of water fasting and four studies of Buchinger fasting (of which one study of 1,422 participants assessed fasting for 5, 10, 15, and 20 days).

The review showed that prolonged fasting for 5-20 days produced large increases in circulating ketones, weight loss of 2%-10%, and decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

People who fasted 5 days typically lost 4%-6% of their weight; those who fasted 7-10 days lost 2%-10% of their weight; and those who fasted 15-20 days lost 7%-10% of their weight.

LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels decreased in some trials.

Fasting glucose levels, fasting insulin levels, insulin resistance, and A1c decreased in adults without diabetes but remained unchanged in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Some participants experienced metabolic acidosis, headaches, insomnia, or hunger.

About two-thirds of the weight lost was of lean mass, and one-third was of fat mass. The loss of lean mass loss suggests that prolonged fasting may increase the breakdown of muscle proteins, which is a concern, the researchers noted.

Few of the trials examined the effects of refeeding. In one study, normal-weight adults lost 6% of their weight after 5 days of water-only fasting but then gained it all back after 3 months of eating regularly.

In three trials, participants regained 1%-2% of their weight 2-4 months after fasting; however, those trials instructed participants to follow a calorie-restricted diet during the refeeding period.

Three to 4 months after the fast was completed, none of the metabolic benefits were maintained, even when weight loss was maintained.

The study did not receive external funding. Dr. Varady has received author fees from Hachette Book Group for “The Every Other Day Diet” and from Pan Macmillan Press for “The Fastest Diet.” The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) may be more common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes than is currently appreciated, a new literature review suggests.

The condition – in which the pancreas fails to produce sufficient enzymes to fully digest food – can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, including steatorrhea or other stool changes, bloating, and/or abdominal pain. The preferred test for diagnosis is a 72-hour fecal fat quantification test, but fecal elastase-1 is a less invasive and reliable alternative; values of less than 200 mcg/g indicate EPI. Treatment is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), taken with every meal.

EPI occurs in up to 90% of people with cystic fibrosis and chronic pancreatitis and is commonly associated with acute pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer. However, those conditions are relatively rare compared to diabetes, yet the EPI association with diabetes is less well-studied, Dana M. Lewis, BA, points out in her review article.

While the data vary across studies, owing to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, the overall median prevalence of EPI was 33% among patients with type 1 diabetes (range, 14%-77.5%) and 29% among patients with type 2 diabetes (range, 16.8%-49.2%), Ms. Lewis reports in the article, which was published in Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics.

“Cumulatively, this suggests there may be significant numbers of people with diabetes with EPI who are undiagnosed. People with diabetes who present with gastrointestinal symptoms – such as steatorrhea or changes in stool, bloating, and/or abdominal pain – should be screened for EPI. Diabetes specialists, gastroenterologists, and primary care providers should be aware of the high rates of prevalence of diabetes and EPI and recommend fecal elastase-1 screening for people with diabetes and GI symptoms,” Ms. Lewis writes.

Since the publication of her article, Ms. Lewis told this news organization, “I’ve gotten feedback from multiple diabetes and general providers that they will be changing their practice as a result of this paper, by screening people with diabetes who have GI symptoms for EPI, which is wonderful to hear.”

In addition, she noted that since she began blogging about EPI and diabetes last year following her own delayed diagnosis, “I have had at least half a dozen people with diabetes tell me that they’ve since sought screening for EPI after years of GI symptoms and ended up being diagnosed with EPI as well.”

Asked to comment, Romesh Khardori, MD, PhD, said in an interview, “it would be prudent to investigate EPI and treat it when confirmed. Consultation with a gastroenterologist colleague may be helpful. Treatment is quite rewarding.”
 

Data limitations; and don’t forget celiac disease and gastroparesis

However, as does Ms. Lewis, Dr. Khardori points to the limitations of the current literature.

“This review suffers from the lack of uniformity amongst the studies in terms of diagnosis and documentation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Many studies lack a control group to draw any meaningful conclusions. Correlations with duration of diabetes, age of onset, symptoms, and glycemic control were mostly lacking,” says Dr. Khardori, now retired but formerly professor of medicine: endocrinology and metabolism at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

In general, the data suggest that PERT is safe and effective for people with diabetes and that it may reduce glycemic variability. However, “there are not many studies looking at glucose outcomes in detail, and only one study that has used CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data, so this is a big area of need for future study,” Ms. Lewis told this news organization.

Ms. Lewis also reviewed the literature on the prevalence of two other diabetes-related gastrointestinal conditions, celiac disease and gastroparesis, “because anecdotally, it seems as though diabetes care providers and people with diabetes are more aware of those as causes of GI symptoms.”

In type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of both celiac disease and gastroparesis are reported at about 5%, in contrast to the 33% for EPI. Similarly, in type 2 diabetes, the reported prevalence of these two conditions are 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, vs. 29% for EPI.

“This suggests to me that there is likely disproportionate screening for things like celiac [disease] and gastroparesis in diabetes, and that screening for EPI when people with diabetes present with GI symptoms is warranted,” Ms. Lewis said.

However, Dr. Khardori cautioned that those conditions may also be missed, noting, “Celiac disease often is undiagnosed and gastropathy or gastroparesis may be overlooked in a busy primary care clinic where most patients with diabetes mellitus get their care.”

Ms. Lewis and Dr. Khardori have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

• No associations were found between preoperative A1c levels and postoperative infection, wound, or ketosis complications in children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes undergoing elective noncardiac surgery or diagnostic procedures.
• Delaying elective surgeries until A1c is consistently normalized may not be warranted, particularly because this is challenging to accomplish rapidly.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis was done of data from surgery and endocrinology medical records of 438 children aged 1-18 years with type 1 (72%) or type 2 diabetes (28%) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Texas Children’s Hospital, January 2011 to June 2021.
• Overall, 28% had an A1c less than 7.0%, 42% had A1c 7%-9%, and 30% had A1c greater than 9%.
• The primary outcome was defined as a new-onset postoperative systemic infection, wound complication, or ketosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of any postoperative systemic infections was 0.91% (n = 4); postoperative wound disruption, 3.33% (n = 19); and postoperative ketosis, 3.89% (n = 17).
• A1c levels were not associated with any postoperative systemic infections, wound complications, or ketosis.
• No other preoperative factors, including diabetes type, body mass index, or procedure type, were association with these complications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Current recommendations suggest consulting with the diabetes team before surgery and if glycemic status is suboptimal to consider delaying surgery and, if surgery cannot be delayed, considering admission to the hospital before surgery for acute optimization of glycemia, However, there is no guidance on the level of elevated A1c that should prompt consideration of delaying surgery. This issue is of crucial importance because necessary elective surgery or diagnostic procedures may be delayed unnecessarily or for longer than needed in children with elevated A1c because of the difficulty of improving A1c levels rapidly.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Grace Kim, MD, of the division of diabetes and endocrinology, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. It was published online August 1, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The postoperative complication rate was low.
• Only elective procedures were included.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

• No associations were found between preoperative A1c levels and postoperative infection, wound, or ketosis complications in children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes undergoing elective noncardiac surgery or diagnostic procedures.
• Delaying elective surgeries until A1c is consistently normalized may not be warranted, particularly because this is challenging to accomplish rapidly.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis was done of data from surgery and endocrinology medical records of 438 children aged 1-18 years with type 1 (72%) or type 2 diabetes (28%) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Texas Children’s Hospital, January 2011 to June 2021.
• Overall, 28% had an A1c less than 7.0%, 42% had A1c 7%-9%, and 30% had A1c greater than 9%.
• The primary outcome was defined as a new-onset postoperative systemic infection, wound complication, or ketosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of any postoperative systemic infections was 0.91% (n = 4); postoperative wound disruption, 3.33% (n = 19); and postoperative ketosis, 3.89% (n = 17).
• A1c levels were not associated with any postoperative systemic infections, wound complications, or ketosis.
• No other preoperative factors, including diabetes type, body mass index, or procedure type, were association with these complications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Current recommendations suggest consulting with the diabetes team before surgery and if glycemic status is suboptimal to consider delaying surgery and, if surgery cannot be delayed, considering admission to the hospital before surgery for acute optimization of glycemia, However, there is no guidance on the level of elevated A1c that should prompt consideration of delaying surgery. This issue is of crucial importance because necessary elective surgery or diagnostic procedures may be delayed unnecessarily or for longer than needed in children with elevated A1c because of the difficulty of improving A1c levels rapidly.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Grace Kim, MD, of the division of diabetes and endocrinology, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. It was published online August 1, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The postoperative complication rate was low.
• Only elective procedures were included.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

• No associations were found between preoperative A1c levels and postoperative infection, wound, or ketosis complications in children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes undergoing elective noncardiac surgery or diagnostic procedures.
• Delaying elective surgeries until A1c is consistently normalized may not be warranted, particularly because this is challenging to accomplish rapidly.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis was done of data from surgery and endocrinology medical records of 438 children aged 1-18 years with type 1 (72%) or type 2 diabetes (28%) undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at Texas Children’s Hospital, January 2011 to June 2021.
• Overall, 28% had an A1c less than 7.0%, 42% had A1c 7%-9%, and 30% had A1c greater than 9%.
• The primary outcome was defined as a new-onset postoperative systemic infection, wound complication, or ketosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of any postoperative systemic infections was 0.91% (n = 4); postoperative wound disruption, 3.33% (n = 19); and postoperative ketosis, 3.89% (n = 17).
• A1c levels were not associated with any postoperative systemic infections, wound complications, or ketosis.
• No other preoperative factors, including diabetes type, body mass index, or procedure type, were association with these complications.

IN PRACTICE:

“Current recommendations suggest consulting with the diabetes team before surgery and if glycemic status is suboptimal to consider delaying surgery and, if surgery cannot be delayed, considering admission to the hospital before surgery for acute optimization of glycemia, However, there is no guidance on the level of elevated A1c that should prompt consideration of delaying surgery. This issue is of crucial importance because necessary elective surgery or diagnostic procedures may be delayed unnecessarily or for longer than needed in children with elevated A1c because of the difficulty of improving A1c levels rapidly.”

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was led by Grace Kim, MD, of the division of diabetes and endocrinology, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. It was published online August 1, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The postoperative complication rate was low.
• Only elective procedures were included.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery, director of limb preservation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.