Diabetes

I want to talk about a new continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric known as glycemic risk index, or GRI. You may ask why we need another metric. We currently have multiple CGM metrics, including time in range, time below range, time above range, mean glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and coefficient of variation, and it seems like an overwhelming number of ways to look at the same data.

The problem is that no single metric tells you exactly what is happening with the patient. For instance, a patient could be at a target time in range of 70%, but that could mean that 30% of that patient’s time is spent too low or even very low, which is a very serious problem, versus if 30% of their time was spent in a somewhat but not very high range, which requires less immediate attention.

Dr. David Klonoff and colleagues, including me, decided to see if one number could be used to identify which patients needed more immediate attention and which needed less. He asked 330 clinicians to evaluate 225 CGM tracings and rank their clinical status in terms of these metrics: very low glucose and low glucose hypoglycemia, very high glucose and high glucose hyperglycemia, time in range, mean glucose, and coefficient of variation.

Then he took all the data and analyzed it in complex ways that I barely understood and came up with one number, the GRI, that captures what the clinicians considered important. The analysis showed that the clinician rankings depended primarily on two components: One related to hypoglycemia, which gives more weight to very low glucose than to low glucose hypoglycemia; and the other related to hyperglycemia, which gives greater weight to very high glucose than to high glucose.

These two components were combined into a single glycemic risk index, the GRI, that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia. In terms of numbers, the best GRI is in the zero to 20th percentile and the worst in the 81st to 100th percentile. The GRI grid that is provided in the paper enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.

As I said initially, at first I wasn’t sure of the utility of adding yet another number to the mix, but I realized that for triaging what I hope will be increasing amounts of CGM data in a health care system, this could help identify those patients who need the most urgent assistance. It can also help providers have an overall sense of how a patient is doing and whether or not they are improving.

The GRI is not yet in general use and needs to be studied to see if it is actually helpful in clinical practice; however, I like the concept. Given the need to increase provider understanding of CGM metrics overall, I think it is a good way for providers to identify which patients need further analysis of their CGM data for potential treatment modifications.

Thank you.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies.

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

I want to talk about a new continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric known as glycemic risk index, or GRI. You may ask why we need another metric. We currently have multiple CGM metrics, including time in range, time below range, time above range, mean glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and coefficient of variation, and it seems like an overwhelming number of ways to look at the same data.

The problem is that no single metric tells you exactly what is happening with the patient. For instance, a patient could be at a target time in range of 70%, but that could mean that 30% of that patient’s time is spent too low or even very low, which is a very serious problem, versus if 30% of their time was spent in a somewhat but not very high range, which requires less immediate attention.

Dr. David Klonoff and colleagues, including me, decided to see if one number could be used to identify which patients needed more immediate attention and which needed less. He asked 330 clinicians to evaluate 225 CGM tracings and rank their clinical status in terms of these metrics: very low glucose and low glucose hypoglycemia, very high glucose and high glucose hyperglycemia, time in range, mean glucose, and coefficient of variation.

Then he took all the data and analyzed it in complex ways that I barely understood and came up with one number, the GRI, that captures what the clinicians considered important. The analysis showed that the clinician rankings depended primarily on two components: One related to hypoglycemia, which gives more weight to very low glucose than to low glucose hypoglycemia; and the other related to hyperglycemia, which gives greater weight to very high glucose than to high glucose.

These two components were combined into a single glycemic risk index, the GRI, that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia. In terms of numbers, the best GRI is in the zero to 20th percentile and the worst in the 81st to 100th percentile. The GRI grid that is provided in the paper enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.

As I said initially, at first I wasn’t sure of the utility of adding yet another number to the mix, but I realized that for triaging what I hope will be increasing amounts of CGM data in a health care system, this could help identify those patients who need the most urgent assistance. It can also help providers have an overall sense of how a patient is doing and whether or not they are improving.

The GRI is not yet in general use and needs to be studied to see if it is actually helpful in clinical practice; however, I like the concept. Given the need to increase provider understanding of CGM metrics overall, I think it is a good way for providers to identify which patients need further analysis of their CGM data for potential treatment modifications.

Thank you.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies.

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

I want to talk about a new continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric known as glycemic risk index, or GRI. You may ask why we need another metric. We currently have multiple CGM metrics, including time in range, time below range, time above range, mean glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and coefficient of variation, and it seems like an overwhelming number of ways to look at the same data.

The problem is that no single metric tells you exactly what is happening with the patient. For instance, a patient could be at a target time in range of 70%, but that could mean that 30% of that patient’s time is spent too low or even very low, which is a very serious problem, versus if 30% of their time was spent in a somewhat but not very high range, which requires less immediate attention.

Dr. David Klonoff and colleagues, including me, decided to see if one number could be used to identify which patients needed more immediate attention and which needed less. He asked 330 clinicians to evaluate 225 CGM tracings and rank their clinical status in terms of these metrics: very low glucose and low glucose hypoglycemia, very high glucose and high glucose hyperglycemia, time in range, mean glucose, and coefficient of variation.

Then he took all the data and analyzed it in complex ways that I barely understood and came up with one number, the GRI, that captures what the clinicians considered important. The analysis showed that the clinician rankings depended primarily on two components: One related to hypoglycemia, which gives more weight to very low glucose than to low glucose hypoglycemia; and the other related to hyperglycemia, which gives greater weight to very high glucose than to high glucose.

These two components were combined into a single glycemic risk index, the GRI, that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia. In terms of numbers, the best GRI is in the zero to 20th percentile and the worst in the 81st to 100th percentile. The GRI grid that is provided in the paper enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.

As I said initially, at first I wasn’t sure of the utility of adding yet another number to the mix, but I realized that for triaging what I hope will be increasing amounts of CGM data in a health care system, this could help identify those patients who need the most urgent assistance. It can also help providers have an overall sense of how a patient is doing and whether or not they are improving.

The GRI is not yet in general use and needs to be studied to see if it is actually helpful in clinical practice; however, I like the concept. Given the need to increase provider understanding of CGM metrics overall, I think it is a good way for providers to identify which patients need further analysis of their CGM data for potential treatment modifications.

Thank you.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

Recently the National Clinical Care Commission provided recommendations to Congress for improving federal diabetes programs in a report. This commission was put together after Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act in 2017.

The report provides a wide range of recommendations that look to combat and prevent diabetes at many levels. An exciting aspect of the recommendations is that they consider how all agencies, including those that are not specifically health care, can fight diabetes. As primary care physicians are increasingly looking at all aspects of our patients’ lives to improve their health, these recommendations provide support for the work on which we are currently embarking.

The report acknowledges that many recent advances in diabetes treatments have made huge differences for clinicians and patients alike. Unfortunately, they have not been translated quickly into practice and when they have been, there have been disparities in the rollouts.

The document also states that many other factors, including housing, health care access, and food access, greatly affect the prevention and control of diabetes, according to a paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine. These factors have led to significant disparities in the population impacted by diabetes.

The topic areas of the recommendations include federal programs and policies; population-level programs to prevent diabetes, facilitate treatments, and promote health equity; type 2 diabetes prevention; insurance coverage; diabetes care delivery; and diabetes research.

Supporting recommendations in clinics

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians can directly support many of the recommendations in their clinics. For those recommendations that are not directed at primary care clinics specifically, physicians should provide advocacy for their implementation.

If implemented, some of these recommendations will allow primary care physicians to improve at providing treatments to their patients for diabetes prevention and treatment of the disease. For example, the recommendations call for requirements of insurance companies to cover screening for prediabetes with the use of hemoglobin A1c and the participation in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recognized diabetes prevention programs.

The recommendations also call for the requirement of high-value diabetes services and treatment to be covered predeductible by insurers. If more consistently covered by insurers, it would be easier for us to implement these opportunities including educational groups in our practices. Additionally, if they were available predeductible, we could recommend these to our patients with less worry about cost.

Within care delivery recommendations, they also highlight the importance of an adequate and sustainable team to enhance care for patients with diabetes. Many of us know that it takes more than just the medications, but also significant counseling on diet, exercise and other lifestyle aspects – which need to be tailored to each patient for both prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The recommendations also call for the education and treatment modalities to be able to be provided and covered via virtual methods, while potentially increasing physicians’ ability to provide and patients’ ability to access. Ensuring both the workforce is available and that insurance provides coverage would make these programs accessible to so many more physician offices and ultimately patients.
 

Importance of social factors

As stated earlier, one of the great aspects of this report is its acknowledgment of the importance of social factors on the prevention and treatment of diabetes.

The report recommends expanding housing opportunities for low-income individuals as individuals cannot focus on their health when worried about housing. It also recommends increasing assistance with programs focused on food security. Primary care physicians should advocate for the adoption of these and other recommendations, because of the potentially meaningful impact these changes could have.

Ensuring adequate housing and access to healthy food would go a long way in the prevention and treatment of diabetes. If there are increases in these resources, team members within primary care physician offices would be wonderful allies to help direct patients to these resources. As these concerns may be top of mind for some patients, linking patients to these resources in the physician’s office may reinforce for patients that physicians understand our patients’ biggest concerns.

Ultimately, if the sweeping recommendations in this report are adopted and enforced, it could mean significant improvements for many patients at risk for and living with diabetes. They would provide payment for these resources making them more accessible for patients and physicians alike.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following a vegan diet for at least 3 months helped people with overweight or type 2 diabetes shed the pounds, but had only a marginal effect on hemoglobin A1c levels, on average, new research indicates.

No effect was seen on blood pressure, triglycerides, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. HbA1c was reduced by a mean of –0.18 percentage points (P = .002), and there was a small reduction in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, on average, across all the studies examined in this meta-analysis.

The work, which compared a number of trials looking at vegan diets versus “normal” eating or other kinds of weight loss diets, “indicates with reasonable certainty that adhering to a vegan diet for at least 12 weeks may result in clinically meaningful weight loss [and] can be used in the management of overweight and type 2 diabetes,” said Anne-Ditte Termannsen, PhD, who reported the findings during a press conference at the European Congress on Obesity 2022, where the work was also presented as a poster.

A vegan diet most likely led to weight loss because it is “associated with a reduced calorie intake due to a lower content of fat and higher content of dietary fiber,” added Dr. Termannsen of the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen.

Asked to comment, Janet Cade, PhD, who leads the Nutritional Epidemiology Group at the University of Leeds (England) said the results are likely attributable to fewer calories in the vegan diet, compared with the “control” diets. “Of course, a vegan diet can be healthier in a range of ways, such as higher fruit and vegetables, more fiber and antioxidants; however, the same would be true of a vegetarian diet,” she noted.

And she warned that longer-term data are needed on health outcomes associated with vegan diets, noting, “there have been links to poorer bone health and osteoporosis in people consuming a vegan diet.”

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England) told the UK Science Media Centre: “The authors conducted a systematic review of intervention studies and found that, compared with no dietary interventions, vegan diets showed the strongest association with body-weight reduction.”

However, “When comparing vegan diets with other dietary interventions – such as the Mediterranean diet – the association was much weaker,” he noted.
 

Vegan, habitual, or a range of weight-loss diets

Dr. Termannsen and colleagues set out to look at the effect of a plant-based diet on cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or type 2 diabetes. They searched the literature for randomized controlled trials with adult participants with overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²), prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes.

Participants followed a vegan diet that lasted at least 12 weeks; habitual diets without any changes or energy restriction; a Mediterranean diet; a host of different “diabetes” diets; a low-fat diet; or portion-controlled diets.

“The vegan diets were nearly all low-fat vegan diets but vary substantially regarding the protein, fat, carbohydrate content. All but one study was ad libitum fat, and there were no energy restrictions,” Dr. Termannsen said.

Control diets were more varied. “Some continued their habitual diet, and about half were energy restricted and the others were not,” she acknowledged.

Outcomes comprised body weight, BMI, HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, which were assessed across studies.

A total of 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis, and studies were a mean duration of 19 weeks. A total of 796 participants were included.

Compared with control diets, those on vegan diets lost on average –4.1 kg (–9 lb) (P < .001), with a range of –5.9 kg to –2.4 kg.

BMI dropped by –1.38 kg/m² (P < .001). Total cholesterol dropped by –0.30 mmol/L (–11.6 mg/dL; P = .007) and LDL cholesterol by –0.24 mmol/L (–9.28 mg/dL; P = .005).

Further analyses found even greater reductions in body weight and BMI when vegan diets were compared with continuing a normal diet without dietary changes, on average, at –7.4 kg (–16.3 lb) (P < .001) and –2.78 kg/m² (P < .001) respectively.

When compared with other intervention diets, however, body weight dropped by –2.7 kg (–6 lb; P < .001) and BMI by –0.87 kg/m² (P < .001).

Commenting on limitations of studies compared to the real world, Dr. Termannsen said: “Some studies reported high adherence to their diet, usually due to a high level of support, suggesting that providing continued face-to-face contact with participants may partly explain the adherence differences.”

“This also questions the long-term feasibility of the diet and the applicability of this as long-term care,” she added.

Following a vegan diet requires good planning to ensure adequate nutrition and avoid any deficiencies, she urged. “We need to remember that the menu plans in the studies were created by dietitians.”

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

Following a vegan diet for at least 3 months helped people with overweight or type 2 diabetes shed the pounds, but had only a marginal effect on hemoglobin A1c levels, on average, new research indicates.

No effect was seen on blood pressure, triglycerides, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. HbA1c was reduced by a mean of –0.18 percentage points (P = .002), and there was a small reduction in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, on average, across all the studies examined in this meta-analysis.

The work, which compared a number of trials looking at vegan diets versus “normal” eating or other kinds of weight loss diets, “indicates with reasonable certainty that adhering to a vegan diet for at least 12 weeks may result in clinically meaningful weight loss [and] can be used in the management of overweight and type 2 diabetes,” said Anne-Ditte Termannsen, PhD, who reported the findings during a press conference at the European Congress on Obesity 2022, where the work was also presented as a poster.

A vegan diet most likely led to weight loss because it is “associated with a reduced calorie intake due to a lower content of fat and higher content of dietary fiber,” added Dr. Termannsen of the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen.

Asked to comment, Janet Cade, PhD, who leads the Nutritional Epidemiology Group at the University of Leeds (England) said the results are likely attributable to fewer calories in the vegan diet, compared with the “control” diets. “Of course, a vegan diet can be healthier in a range of ways, such as higher fruit and vegetables, more fiber and antioxidants; however, the same would be true of a vegetarian diet,” she noted.

And she warned that longer-term data are needed on health outcomes associated with vegan diets, noting, “there have been links to poorer bone health and osteoporosis in people consuming a vegan diet.”

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England) told the UK Science Media Centre: “The authors conducted a systematic review of intervention studies and found that, compared with no dietary interventions, vegan diets showed the strongest association with body-weight reduction.”

However, “When comparing vegan diets with other dietary interventions – such as the Mediterranean diet – the association was much weaker,” he noted.
 

Vegan, habitual, or a range of weight-loss diets

Dr. Termannsen and colleagues set out to look at the effect of a plant-based diet on cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or type 2 diabetes. They searched the literature for randomized controlled trials with adult participants with overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²), prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes.

Participants followed a vegan diet that lasted at least 12 weeks; habitual diets without any changes or energy restriction; a Mediterranean diet; a host of different “diabetes” diets; a low-fat diet; or portion-controlled diets.

“The vegan diets were nearly all low-fat vegan diets but vary substantially regarding the protein, fat, carbohydrate content. All but one study was ad libitum fat, and there were no energy restrictions,” Dr. Termannsen said.

Control diets were more varied. “Some continued their habitual diet, and about half were energy restricted and the others were not,” she acknowledged.

Outcomes comprised body weight, BMI, HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, which were assessed across studies.

A total of 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis, and studies were a mean duration of 19 weeks. A total of 796 participants were included.

Compared with control diets, those on vegan diets lost on average –4.1 kg (–9 lb) (P < .001), with a range of –5.9 kg to –2.4 kg.

BMI dropped by –1.38 kg/m² (P < .001). Total cholesterol dropped by –0.30 mmol/L (–11.6 mg/dL; P = .007) and LDL cholesterol by –0.24 mmol/L (–9.28 mg/dL; P = .005).

Further analyses found even greater reductions in body weight and BMI when vegan diets were compared with continuing a normal diet without dietary changes, on average, at –7.4 kg (–16.3 lb) (P < .001) and –2.78 kg/m² (P < .001) respectively.

When compared with other intervention diets, however, body weight dropped by –2.7 kg (–6 lb; P < .001) and BMI by –0.87 kg/m² (P < .001).

Commenting on limitations of studies compared to the real world, Dr. Termannsen said: “Some studies reported high adherence to their diet, usually due to a high level of support, suggesting that providing continued face-to-face contact with participants may partly explain the adherence differences.”

“This also questions the long-term feasibility of the diet and the applicability of this as long-term care,” she added.

Following a vegan diet requires good planning to ensure adequate nutrition and avoid any deficiencies, she urged. “We need to remember that the menu plans in the studies were created by dietitians.”

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

Following a vegan diet for at least 3 months helped people with overweight or type 2 diabetes shed the pounds, but had only a marginal effect on hemoglobin A1c levels, on average, new research indicates.

No effect was seen on blood pressure, triglycerides, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. HbA1c was reduced by a mean of –0.18 percentage points (P = .002), and there was a small reduction in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, on average, across all the studies examined in this meta-analysis.

The work, which compared a number of trials looking at vegan diets versus “normal” eating or other kinds of weight loss diets, “indicates with reasonable certainty that adhering to a vegan diet for at least 12 weeks may result in clinically meaningful weight loss [and] can be used in the management of overweight and type 2 diabetes,” said Anne-Ditte Termannsen, PhD, who reported the findings during a press conference at the European Congress on Obesity 2022, where the work was also presented as a poster.

A vegan diet most likely led to weight loss because it is “associated with a reduced calorie intake due to a lower content of fat and higher content of dietary fiber,” added Dr. Termannsen of the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen.

Asked to comment, Janet Cade, PhD, who leads the Nutritional Epidemiology Group at the University of Leeds (England) said the results are likely attributable to fewer calories in the vegan diet, compared with the “control” diets. “Of course, a vegan diet can be healthier in a range of ways, such as higher fruit and vegetables, more fiber and antioxidants; however, the same would be true of a vegetarian diet,” she noted.

And she warned that longer-term data are needed on health outcomes associated with vegan diets, noting, “there have been links to poorer bone health and osteoporosis in people consuming a vegan diet.”

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England) told the UK Science Media Centre: “The authors conducted a systematic review of intervention studies and found that, compared with no dietary interventions, vegan diets showed the strongest association with body-weight reduction.”

However, “When comparing vegan diets with other dietary interventions – such as the Mediterranean diet – the association was much weaker,” he noted.
 

Vegan, habitual, or a range of weight-loss diets

Dr. Termannsen and colleagues set out to look at the effect of a plant-based diet on cardiometabolic risk factors in people with overweight or type 2 diabetes. They searched the literature for randomized controlled trials with adult participants with overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²), prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes.

Participants followed a vegan diet that lasted at least 12 weeks; habitual diets without any changes or energy restriction; a Mediterranean diet; a host of different “diabetes” diets; a low-fat diet; or portion-controlled diets.

“The vegan diets were nearly all low-fat vegan diets but vary substantially regarding the protein, fat, carbohydrate content. All but one study was ad libitum fat, and there were no energy restrictions,” Dr. Termannsen said.

Control diets were more varied. “Some continued their habitual diet, and about half were energy restricted and the others were not,” she acknowledged.

Outcomes comprised body weight, BMI, HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, which were assessed across studies.

A total of 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis, and studies were a mean duration of 19 weeks. A total of 796 participants were included.

Compared with control diets, those on vegan diets lost on average –4.1 kg (–9 lb) (P < .001), with a range of –5.9 kg to –2.4 kg.

BMI dropped by –1.38 kg/m² (P < .001). Total cholesterol dropped by –0.30 mmol/L (–11.6 mg/dL; P = .007) and LDL cholesterol by –0.24 mmol/L (–9.28 mg/dL; P = .005).

Further analyses found even greater reductions in body weight and BMI when vegan diets were compared with continuing a normal diet without dietary changes, on average, at –7.4 kg (–16.3 lb) (P < .001) and –2.78 kg/m² (P < .001) respectively.

When compared with other intervention diets, however, body weight dropped by –2.7 kg (–6 lb; P < .001) and BMI by –0.87 kg/m² (P < .001).

Commenting on limitations of studies compared to the real world, Dr. Termannsen said: “Some studies reported high adherence to their diet, usually due to a high level of support, suggesting that providing continued face-to-face contact with participants may partly explain the adherence differences.”

“This also questions the long-term feasibility of the diet and the applicability of this as long-term care,” she added.

Following a vegan diet requires good planning to ensure adequate nutrition and avoid any deficiencies, she urged. “We need to remember that the menu plans in the studies were created by dietitians.”

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

Counting calories, joining a gym, and taking part in exercise programs are popular methods used by people in the United Kingdom who want to shed some pounds, but they seem to be fairly ineffective strategies, according to an investigation.

A survey of adults with obesity from six countries in western Europe found that most who set out to reduce a meaningful amount of weight failed in their attempt.

The preliminary results, presented in two posters at the European Congress on Obesity, underlined the need for better support and solutions for weight management, the authors suggested.

Marc Evans, MB, BCh, a consultant physician in diabetes and endocrinology, from University Hospital, Cardiff, Wales, who led the analysis, said that, “while obesity’s impact on health is well known, our finding that a sizable proportion of adults with obesity appear at elevated risk of hospitalization or surgery due to multiple underlying illnesses, undoubtedly adds a sense of urgency to tackling Europe’s growing obesity epidemic.”

The study, which also involved analytics consultancy firm Lane Clark & Peacock, conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,850 adults. Of those 500 were from the UK, and the remainder from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden.

All participants had a body mass index of 30 kg/m², or higher. More specifically, 56.3%; were classified as obesity class I, 26.8% obesity class II, and 16.9% obesity class III.
 

Obesity-related conditions

In total, 25.7% of participants reported no obesity-related health conditions, 28.4% had one condition, 19.6% had two, and 26.3% had three or more. The most common comorbidities were hypertension, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 78.6% of respondents reported having tried to lose weight in the previous year. Asked in a questionnaire about how they had tried to achieve this, the responses indicated that the most common strategies were:

• Calorie-controlled/restricted diet (71.9%)
• Exercise program course (21.9%)
• Pharmaceutical treatment/medication (12.3%)
• Joined a gym (12%)
• Digital health app (9.7%)

Among other participants, 8.1% said they had used alternative treatments, 7.6% a weight loss service, and 2.1% cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Analysis of the survey results showed that 78% of the individuals who attempted to lose weight did not achieve a clinically meaningful loss of 5% or more of their body weight, while some actually weighed more afterward.

Exercise and restricted diet

Notably, while exercise and calorie-controlled or restricted diets were among the most popular weight-loss methods in U.K. participants, they were amongst the least successful strategies. For instance, while 26.5% of adults who controlled their diet said they had lost weight, 17.1% reported their weight had increased. For those who took part in an exercise program, 33.3% said they lost weight, but 15.5% said they gained weight.

Signing up for gym membership also scored poorly, with 27% shedding weight, compared with 32.4% who put weight on.

“Our survey results indicate that, while the majority of adults with obesity are actively trying to reduce their weight, using a variety of strategies, most are unsuccessful,” said Dr. Evans.

Further studies were needed to assess whether people who lose weight succeed in maintaining their weight loss, the authors said.

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, a researcher into and manufacturer of diabetes and obesity medications, and employer of several of the coauthors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

Counting calories, joining a gym, and taking part in exercise programs are popular methods used by people in the United Kingdom who want to shed some pounds, but they seem to be fairly ineffective strategies, according to an investigation.

A survey of adults with obesity from six countries in western Europe found that most who set out to reduce a meaningful amount of weight failed in their attempt.

The preliminary results, presented in two posters at the European Congress on Obesity, underlined the need for better support and solutions for weight management, the authors suggested.

Marc Evans, MB, BCh, a consultant physician in diabetes and endocrinology, from University Hospital, Cardiff, Wales, who led the analysis, said that, “while obesity’s impact on health is well known, our finding that a sizable proportion of adults with obesity appear at elevated risk of hospitalization or surgery due to multiple underlying illnesses, undoubtedly adds a sense of urgency to tackling Europe’s growing obesity epidemic.”

The study, which also involved analytics consultancy firm Lane Clark & Peacock, conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,850 adults. Of those 500 were from the UK, and the remainder from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden.

All participants had a body mass index of 30 kg/m², or higher. More specifically, 56.3%; were classified as obesity class I, 26.8% obesity class II, and 16.9% obesity class III.
 

Obesity-related conditions

In total, 25.7% of participants reported no obesity-related health conditions, 28.4% had one condition, 19.6% had two, and 26.3% had three or more. The most common comorbidities were hypertension, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 78.6% of respondents reported having tried to lose weight in the previous year. Asked in a questionnaire about how they had tried to achieve this, the responses indicated that the most common strategies were:

• Calorie-controlled/restricted diet (71.9%)
• Exercise program course (21.9%)
• Pharmaceutical treatment/medication (12.3%)
• Joined a gym (12%)
• Digital health app (9.7%)

Among other participants, 8.1% said they had used alternative treatments, 7.6% a weight loss service, and 2.1% cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Analysis of the survey results showed that 78% of the individuals who attempted to lose weight did not achieve a clinically meaningful loss of 5% or more of their body weight, while some actually weighed more afterward.

Exercise and restricted diet

Notably, while exercise and calorie-controlled or restricted diets were among the most popular weight-loss methods in U.K. participants, they were amongst the least successful strategies. For instance, while 26.5% of adults who controlled their diet said they had lost weight, 17.1% reported their weight had increased. For those who took part in an exercise program, 33.3% said they lost weight, but 15.5% said they gained weight.

Signing up for gym membership also scored poorly, with 27% shedding weight, compared with 32.4% who put weight on.

“Our survey results indicate that, while the majority of adults with obesity are actively trying to reduce their weight, using a variety of strategies, most are unsuccessful,” said Dr. Evans.

Further studies were needed to assess whether people who lose weight succeed in maintaining their weight loss, the authors said.

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, a researcher into and manufacturer of diabetes and obesity medications, and employer of several of the coauthors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

Counting calories, joining a gym, and taking part in exercise programs are popular methods used by people in the United Kingdom who want to shed some pounds, but they seem to be fairly ineffective strategies, according to an investigation.

A survey of adults with obesity from six countries in western Europe found that most who set out to reduce a meaningful amount of weight failed in their attempt.

The preliminary results, presented in two posters at the European Congress on Obesity, underlined the need for better support and solutions for weight management, the authors suggested.

Marc Evans, MB, BCh, a consultant physician in diabetes and endocrinology, from University Hospital, Cardiff, Wales, who led the analysis, said that, “while obesity’s impact on health is well known, our finding that a sizable proportion of adults with obesity appear at elevated risk of hospitalization or surgery due to multiple underlying illnesses, undoubtedly adds a sense of urgency to tackling Europe’s growing obesity epidemic.”

The study, which also involved analytics consultancy firm Lane Clark & Peacock, conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,850 adults. Of those 500 were from the UK, and the remainder from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden.

All participants had a body mass index of 30 kg/m², or higher. More specifically, 56.3%; were classified as obesity class I, 26.8% obesity class II, and 16.9% obesity class III.
 

Obesity-related conditions

In total, 25.7% of participants reported no obesity-related health conditions, 28.4% had one condition, 19.6% had two, and 26.3% had three or more. The most common comorbidities were hypertension, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes.

Overall, 78.6% of respondents reported having tried to lose weight in the previous year. Asked in a questionnaire about how they had tried to achieve this, the responses indicated that the most common strategies were:

• Calorie-controlled/restricted diet (71.9%)
• Exercise program course (21.9%)
• Pharmaceutical treatment/medication (12.3%)
• Joined a gym (12%)
• Digital health app (9.7%)

Among other participants, 8.1% said they had used alternative treatments, 7.6% a weight loss service, and 2.1% cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Analysis of the survey results showed that 78% of the individuals who attempted to lose weight did not achieve a clinically meaningful loss of 5% or more of their body weight, while some actually weighed more afterward.

Exercise and restricted diet

Notably, while exercise and calorie-controlled or restricted diets were among the most popular weight-loss methods in U.K. participants, they were amongst the least successful strategies. For instance, while 26.5% of adults who controlled their diet said they had lost weight, 17.1% reported their weight had increased. For those who took part in an exercise program, 33.3% said they lost weight, but 15.5% said they gained weight.

Signing up for gym membership also scored poorly, with 27% shedding weight, compared with 32.4% who put weight on.

“Our survey results indicate that, while the majority of adults with obesity are actively trying to reduce their weight, using a variety of strategies, most are unsuccessful,” said Dr. Evans.

Further studies were needed to assess whether people who lose weight succeed in maintaining their weight loss, the authors said.

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk, a researcher into and manufacturer of diabetes and obesity medications, and employer of several of the coauthors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK/Univadis.

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

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

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

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

Topline results from the phase 3 DELIVER trial show dapagliflozin (Farxiga) significantly reduced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca announced today.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is not approved in this setting but is already approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“The results of DELIVER extend the benefit of dapagliflozin to the full spectrum of patients with heart failure,” principal investigator of the trial, Scott Solomon, MD, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the news release.

The safety and tolerability of dapagliflozin in the trial were consistent with its established safety profile, the company says.

The full trial results will be submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting, and regulatory submissions will be made in the coming months, it notes.

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

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.

CHICAGO – Recent research has changed at least one physician’s understanding of obesity and boosted her hope for fighting it.

Caroline Apovian, MD, codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, described some of the new insights about obesity she has gained during her talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“When I was a medical student a while back, I learned that fat tissue just sat there and stored fat,” she said. “Now we know it’s an endocrine organ.”

This tissue secretes hormones, such as leptin, and other factors that have an array of effects on the brain, pancreas, heart, liver, and muscles. Moreover, it has plasticity, with the ability to change, constantly adjusting our metabolism as nutrient supply and demand changes, she continued.

Obesity leads to a decline in this plasticity, leading to fibrosis and inflammation and other problems. These changes can further impair the function of adipose tissue, leading to metabolic disease. But the central role of adipose tissue, and its dynamic nature, presents an opportunity for treatment, Dr. Apovian said, during her talk.
 

Hints to why obesity has become more common

More than 42% of the U.S. population – “unbelievably,” Dr. Apovian said – is obese, meaning they have a BMI over 30, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up by about 25% since 1960, although calories eaten hasn’t increased, and physical activity has increased somewhat, she said.

The root cause is still a bit of a mystery, but according to “good hints and clues” from animal models that are starting to be translated to the study of human obesity, “it has to do with epigenetics and how our brains and our bodies are perceiving the environment,” she noted, during her presentation.

“Our genes haven’t changed. Our environment has changed,” she said.

The industrialization of the food supply, the use of pesticides and preservatives, the dawn of fast food have all combined, most likely, to do “a number on our bodies,” Dr. Apovian said.

But not all hope is lost thanks to new research, Dr. Apovian suggested.
 

New treatments show promise for helping patients’ obesity

New research that has increased Dr. Apovian’s understanding of the sophisticated role of adipose tissue may be helpful for treating patients with obesity, offering more targets for intervention, she told the audience.

Some treatment avenues already identified have started producing results, Dr. Apovian noted.

Gastric bypass surgery typically leads to a loss of 25% of body weight, but is often shunned by patients, she said. “With such a great surgical procedure, we still only do 256,000 procedures and we have millions of Americans with a BMI over 30.”

Weight control with obsessive dieting, meal-planning and calorie-counting, “can be done, but it’s really hard,” Dr. Apovian noted.

More appealing therapies targeting hormones and appetite suppression have produced impressive results. Recently approved semaglutide produced 14% weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, she said.

Results just released for tirzepatide, a dual agonist of gut hormones GLP-1 and GIP, show a 22% total weight loss, compared with about 2% for placebo, with about 56% of patients losing more than 20% of their body weight, Dr. Apovian said.

Referencing studies finding that several hormones are altered during weight loss, she predicted that targeting multiple hormones with drug treatment will also be necessary for best results.

But, she noted, “we’re treating obesity now with one- or two-drug combos.”
 

Medication costs are too high for many patients

Isis Smith, MD, an internist at University Medical Center in New Orleans, said in an interview that the cost of the most effective medications – which are not covered by Medicaid – means that many of her patients don’t have access to these treatments.

“We’re talking about $1,000 a month. And so there is no way they can afford [them]. I can prescribe phentermine [but] unless a patient has another indication, Medicaid will not pay for it,” she explained.

“I love hearing about all of the new developments. ... It’s interesting to hear, but we need to get insurance to pay so that I can actually prescribe,” Dr. Smith noted.

Dr. Apovian reports financial relationships with Xeno Biosciences, Cowen, Allergan, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Nutrition, and other companies.