Endocrinology

Richard* was a master-of-the-universe type. He went to Wharton, ran a large hedge fund, and lived in Greenwich, Connecticut. His three children attended Ivy League schools. He played golf on the weekends and ate three healthy meals per day. There was just one issue: He had gained 90 pounds since the 1990s from consuming six to seven alcoholic beverages per day. He already had one DUI under his belt, and his marriage was on shaky ground. He had tried to address his alcohol abuse disorder on multiple occasions: He went to a yearlong class on alcoholism, saw a psychologist for cognitive-behavioral therapy, and joined Alcoholics Anonymous, all to no avail. 

When I met him in December 2023, he had hit rock bottom and was willing to try anything.

At our first visit, I prescribed him weekly tirzepatide (Zepbound) off label, along with a small dose of naltrexone. 

Richard shared some feedback after his first 2 weeks:

The naltrexone works great and is strong ... small dose for me effective ... I haven’t wanted to drink and when I do I can’t finish a glass over 2 hours … went from 25 drinks a week to about 4 … don’t notice other side effects … sleeping better too.

And after 6 weeks:

Some more feedback … on week 6-7 and all going well ... drinking very little alcohol and still on half tab of naltrexone ... that works well and have no side effects ... the Zepbound works well too. I do get hungry a few days after the shot but still don’t crave sugar or bad snacks … weight down 21 pounds since started … 292 to 271.

And finally, after 8 weeks:

Looking at my last text to you I see the progress … been incredible ... now down 35 pounds and at 257 … continue to feel excellent with plenty of energy … want to exercise more ... and no temptation to eat or drink unhealthy stuff ... I’m very happy this has surpassed my expectations on how fast it’s worked and I don’t feel any side effects. Marriage has never been better … all thanks to you. 

Tirzepatide contains two hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), that are naturally produced by our bodies after meals. Scientists recently learned that the GLP-1 system contributes to the feedback loop of addictive behaviors. Increasing synthetic GLP-1, through medications like tirzepatide, appears to minimize addictive behaviors by limiting their ability to upregulate the brain’s production of dopamine. 

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter produced in the brain’s reward center, which regulates how people experience pleasure and control impulses. Dopamine reinforces the pleasure experienced by certain behaviors like drinking, smoking, and eating sweets. These new medications reduce the amount of dopamine released after these activities and thereby lower the motivation to repeat these behaviors. 

Contrary to some reports in the news, the vast majority of my male patients using these medications for alcohol abuse disorder experience concurrent increases in testosterone, for two reasons: (1) testosterone increases as body mass index decreases and (2) chronic alcohol use can damage the cells in the testicles that produce testosterone and also decrease the brain’s ability to stimulate the testicles to produce testosterone. 

At his most recent checkup last month, Richard’s testosterone had risen from borderline to robust levels, his libido and sleep had improved, and he reported never having felt so healthy or confident. Fingers crossed that the US Food and Drug Administration won’t wait too long before approving this class of medications for more than just diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. 

*Patient’s name has been changed.
 

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associate professor, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Richard* was a master-of-the-universe type. He went to Wharton, ran a large hedge fund, and lived in Greenwich, Connecticut. His three children attended Ivy League schools. He played golf on the weekends and ate three healthy meals per day. There was just one issue: He had gained 90 pounds since the 1990s from consuming six to seven alcoholic beverages per day. He already had one DUI under his belt, and his marriage was on shaky ground. He had tried to address his alcohol abuse disorder on multiple occasions: He went to a yearlong class on alcoholism, saw a psychologist for cognitive-behavioral therapy, and joined Alcoholics Anonymous, all to no avail. 

When I met him in December 2023, he had hit rock bottom and was willing to try anything.

At our first visit, I prescribed him weekly tirzepatide (Zepbound) off label, along with a small dose of naltrexone. 

Richard shared some feedback after his first 2 weeks:

The naltrexone works great and is strong ... small dose for me effective ... I haven’t wanted to drink and when I do I can’t finish a glass over 2 hours … went from 25 drinks a week to about 4 … don’t notice other side effects … sleeping better too.

And after 6 weeks:

Some more feedback … on week 6-7 and all going well ... drinking very little alcohol and still on half tab of naltrexone ... that works well and have no side effects ... the Zepbound works well too. I do get hungry a few days after the shot but still don’t crave sugar or bad snacks … weight down 21 pounds since started … 292 to 271.

And finally, after 8 weeks:

Looking at my last text to you I see the progress … been incredible ... now down 35 pounds and at 257 … continue to feel excellent with plenty of energy … want to exercise more ... and no temptation to eat or drink unhealthy stuff ... I’m very happy this has surpassed my expectations on how fast it’s worked and I don’t feel any side effects. Marriage has never been better … all thanks to you. 

Tirzepatide contains two hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), that are naturally produced by our bodies after meals. Scientists recently learned that the GLP-1 system contributes to the feedback loop of addictive behaviors. Increasing synthetic GLP-1, through medications like tirzepatide, appears to minimize addictive behaviors by limiting their ability to upregulate the brain’s production of dopamine. 

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter produced in the brain’s reward center, which regulates how people experience pleasure and control impulses. Dopamine reinforces the pleasure experienced by certain behaviors like drinking, smoking, and eating sweets. These new medications reduce the amount of dopamine released after these activities and thereby lower the motivation to repeat these behaviors. 

Contrary to some reports in the news, the vast majority of my male patients using these medications for alcohol abuse disorder experience concurrent increases in testosterone, for two reasons: (1) testosterone increases as body mass index decreases and (2) chronic alcohol use can damage the cells in the testicles that produce testosterone and also decrease the brain’s ability to stimulate the testicles to produce testosterone. 

At his most recent checkup last month, Richard’s testosterone had risen from borderline to robust levels, his libido and sleep had improved, and he reported never having felt so healthy or confident. Fingers crossed that the US Food and Drug Administration won’t wait too long before approving this class of medications for more than just diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. 

*Patient’s name has been changed.
 

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associate professor, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Richard* was a master-of-the-universe type. He went to Wharton, ran a large hedge fund, and lived in Greenwich, Connecticut. His three children attended Ivy League schools. He played golf on the weekends and ate three healthy meals per day. There was just one issue: He had gained 90 pounds since the 1990s from consuming six to seven alcoholic beverages per day. He already had one DUI under his belt, and his marriage was on shaky ground. He had tried to address his alcohol abuse disorder on multiple occasions: He went to a yearlong class on alcoholism, saw a psychologist for cognitive-behavioral therapy, and joined Alcoholics Anonymous, all to no avail. 

When I met him in December 2023, he had hit rock bottom and was willing to try anything.

At our first visit, I prescribed him weekly tirzepatide (Zepbound) off label, along with a small dose of naltrexone. 

Richard shared some feedback after his first 2 weeks:

The naltrexone works great and is strong ... small dose for me effective ... I haven’t wanted to drink and when I do I can’t finish a glass over 2 hours … went from 25 drinks a week to about 4 … don’t notice other side effects … sleeping better too.

And after 6 weeks:

Some more feedback … on week 6-7 and all going well ... drinking very little alcohol and still on half tab of naltrexone ... that works well and have no side effects ... the Zepbound works well too. I do get hungry a few days after the shot but still don’t crave sugar or bad snacks … weight down 21 pounds since started … 292 to 271.

And finally, after 8 weeks:

Looking at my last text to you I see the progress … been incredible ... now down 35 pounds and at 257 … continue to feel excellent with plenty of energy … want to exercise more ... and no temptation to eat or drink unhealthy stuff ... I’m very happy this has surpassed my expectations on how fast it’s worked and I don’t feel any side effects. Marriage has never been better … all thanks to you. 

Tirzepatide contains two hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), that are naturally produced by our bodies after meals. Scientists recently learned that the GLP-1 system contributes to the feedback loop of addictive behaviors. Increasing synthetic GLP-1, through medications like tirzepatide, appears to minimize addictive behaviors by limiting their ability to upregulate the brain’s production of dopamine. 

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter produced in the brain’s reward center, which regulates how people experience pleasure and control impulses. Dopamine reinforces the pleasure experienced by certain behaviors like drinking, smoking, and eating sweets. These new medications reduce the amount of dopamine released after these activities and thereby lower the motivation to repeat these behaviors. 

Contrary to some reports in the news, the vast majority of my male patients using these medications for alcohol abuse disorder experience concurrent increases in testosterone, for two reasons: (1) testosterone increases as body mass index decreases and (2) chronic alcohol use can damage the cells in the testicles that produce testosterone and also decrease the brain’s ability to stimulate the testicles to produce testosterone. 

At his most recent checkup last month, Richard’s testosterone had risen from borderline to robust levels, his libido and sleep had improved, and he reported never having felt so healthy or confident. Fingers crossed that the US Food and Drug Administration won’t wait too long before approving this class of medications for more than just diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. 

*Patient’s name has been changed.
 

Dr. Messer is clinical assistant professor, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associate professor, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Use of over-the-counter arthritis supplements containing undisclosed glucocorticoids can lead to iatrogenic adrenal dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, and/or adrenal insufficiency (AI). 

Patients who have been taking these supplements for prolonged periods must slowly taper off them with corticosteroid replacement, because abruptly stopping the supplement can precipitate AI, Kevin S. Wei, MD, said in a presentation of 12 cases — the largest such series to date of the phenomenon — at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The specific supplements used were Artri King in eight of the patients, Ardosons in two, and Ajo Rey in one. In April 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that Artri King contains diclofenac and dexamethasone not listed on the product label. In July 2023, the agency issued an expanded warning about that product and others including Ajo Rey.

The supplements are not believed to be sold in the United States, but they are available in Mexico and can be ordered online, said Dr. Wei, a second-year resident at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“We found that quite a lot of patients after they’ve been on the Artri King or some other over the counter arthritis supplement, started developing these cushingoid features seen in the physical exam, such as rounded facial features or stretch marks of their abdomen,” he said.

And “when patients are abruptly taken off those supplements … sometimes this can cause them to go into signs or symptoms of adrenal insufficiency. That can occasionally be life-threatening if it’s not addressed in an inpatient setting,” Dr. Wei said.

In an interview, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that when a person takes these drugs containing hidden glucocorticoids, “they won’t be picked up in a cortisol assay, but they’ll suppress the [adrenocorticotropic hormone] and the person’s own cortisol production. They look like they have Cushing, but when you measure their hormone levels, they’re undetectable. And then people wonder what’s going on. Well, their [hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal] axis is suppressed.”

But if the product is suddenly stopped without cortisol replacement “If they get an infection they can die because they can’t mount a cortisol response.”

The takeaway message, she said, is “always ask patients to show you their supplements and look at them. In many cases, that’s why they work so well for pain relief because they have ingredients that people shouldn’t be taking.”

Twelve Patients Seen During 2022-2023

The 12 patients were seen during 2022-2023 at an endocrinology consult service in an urban safety net hospital. Their median age was 52 years, and one third were women. All had started using the supplements for joint pain, with a median of about 6 months of use prior to cessation.

Presenting symptoms included nausea/vomiting in 42%, fatigue in 42%, abdominal pain in 33%, and dizziness in 17%. Physical exam findings included moon facies in 66%, central adiposity in 66%, abdominal striae in 50%, dorsocervical fat pad in 33%, and bruising in 33%. Three required intensive care admission.

Cortisol testing was performed in 11 of the patients and was normal (≥ 16 mcg/dL) in just one. AI (≤ 3 mcg/dL) was found in three, while the rest had indeterminate results. Of those seven patients, subsequent cosyntropin-stimulation testing suggested AI (cortisol < 16 mcg/dL at 60 minutes post stimulation) in four patients, while the other two showed reduced but normal responses (cortisol 18.2-18.4 mcg/dL).

Ten of the 12 patients were prescribed glucocorticoid tapering replacements to avoid precipitating adrenal crisis, most commonly twice-daily hydrocortisone. Of those ten, eight continued to take the replacement steroids 1-2 years later, Dr. Wei said.

Dr. Wei and Dr. Wardlaw had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

BOSTON — An investigational male contraceptive gel suppresses sperm more rapidly than previous products in development, new data suggested.

The product, 8 mg segesterone acetate (Nestorone) combined with 74 mg testosterone (“NesT”) is a gel that a man applies daily to both shoulders. The progesterone blocks spermatogenesis, and the testosterone restores blood levels to maintain sexual function. It is under development by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in collaboration with the Population Council, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, and the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Currently, the only available male contraceptives are vasectomy, which isn’t easily reversible, and condoms, which have a high failure rate. Previous attempts to develop a “male pill” have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, but so far, this product appears effective and safe, Diana Blithe, PhD, chief of the Contraceptive Development Program at NICHD, said at a press briefing held on June 2, 2024, during the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“It’s been a long time coming. … Men need and want more contraceptive options such as an effective reversible method,” she told this news organization.

New phase 2b data show that among 222 couples in which the man initially had normal (> 15 million/mL) sperm counts, the median time to suppression (< 1 million/mL) was less than 8 weeks with NesT compared with 9-15 weeks seen in previous trials of injected male hormonal contraceptives. Nearly all (86%) had achieved suppression by 15 weeks.

After two consecutive counts of < 1 million/mL, the couples entered the trial’s ongoing 2-year efficacy phase. There have been no major safety concerns thus far, but “we need more data,” Dr. Blithe noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Frances Hayes, MBBCh, associate clinical chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said, “certainly, I think it’s a big advance on what we have so far. … I think it’s showing great promise.”

Dr. Hayes did caution, though, that “with real-world use, daily application of a gel might be a bit more challenging than taking an injection…an injection is more consistent. With a gel, patients might forget or shower it off. But I don’t think 1 day of interruption would be a significant thing.”

Transference of the topical to a partner or a child is another potential concern, Dr. Hayes noted, although this is true of current testosterone gel products as well. During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that this issue is why the product is recommended to be placed on the upper arms rather than the abdomen or another spot more likely to come into contact with another person. Also, in the trial, men were instructed to wear shirts during intercourse.

Regarding the rapidity of sperm suppression, Dr. Hayes said, “It’s surprising. It looks great as a reversible contraceptive. … Normally, you think of the life cycle of the sperm being about 72 days. So to see 50% suppression by 8 weeks, and then 85%-90% by 15 weeks, that’s very rapid. It may be that the progesterone that they’re using is very potent. Progestins can have some negative effects on lipids and mood. We didn’t really see the safety data in this presentation. So that will be interesting to see.”

During the briefing, Dr. Blithe said that the phase 2b trial is expected to finish by the end of this year, and in the meantime, the researchers are communicating with the US Food and Drug Administration about the design of a phase 3 trial because this is an unprecedented area. “They don’t have guidelines yet. They’ll need to develop them first.”

Dr. Blithe has been the NICHD principal investigator on cooperative research and development agreements with HRA Pharma and Daré Bioscience. Dr. Hayes had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Meaningful weight loss was seen with the weight loss drugs Wegovy or Ozempic regardless of whether people had previous weight loss surgery, a first-of-its-kind study reveals.

In addition, insurance coverage/expense was the most common issue for people wishing to start the popular medications, known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Side effects and drug shortages were among the reasons people stopped taking the medication.

Overall, people lost an average of 6% of their total body weight in almost 1 year of taking semaglutide, the class of drugs that includes Wegovy and Ozempic. When researchers compared people who had weight loss surgery with those who had not, total weight loss was almost identical: 5.8% in those who had surgery, vs 6.0% in those who had not.

People in this study lost a lower percentage of their total body weight, compared with people in clinical trials for the drugs, who tended to lose up to 15%, said lead investigator Pourya Medhati, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These results suggest real-world weight loss results may be different than those in carefully controlled research studies. Dr. Medhati presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 in Washington.

Total weight loss was not significantly different between men and women in the surgery group. But in the nonsurgery group, women lost 6.4%, compared with 4.8% among men, a significant difference.

Dr. Medhati and Ali Tavakkoli, MD, chief of the Division of General and GI Surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, used electronic health records to study 2491 adults prescribed semaglutide between 2018 and 2023 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Average age was 51, 74% were White, and 78% were women. A total of 13% had a history of weight loss surgery.
 

Costs, Side Effects, and Other Concerns

The investigators looked at issues around starting and staying on semaglutide in a subgroup of 500 patients. A total of 75 people never started the drug, for example. The majority, 72%, of this group said it was because of insurance coverage or the cost of the medication. Another 19% did not give a reason, and 9% said it was because of side effects.

People with higher body mass indexes and diabetes were less likely to start taking semaglutide, Dr. Medhati said.

Another 100 of the 500 patients started and then stopped semaglutide. Again, insurance coverage and cost were reasons, this time cited by 13%. About 36% stopped because of side effects; 21% pointed to a shortage of semaglutide; and 30% stopped for an unspecified reason.

“Our study highlights the importance of addressing insurance to ensure broader access,” Dr. Medhati said.

The 325 people who stayed on semaglutide lost an average of 8.5% of their total body weight at 50 weeks.
 

Access Remains Unequal

“These medications are incredibly powerful to treat obesity and weight-related disease both for people with a history of bariatric surgery and those without,” said session co-moderator Matthew Kroh, MD, vice chair of innovation and technology in the Department of General Surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

More equitable access to semaglutide and other GLP-1s is needed, he said. “Because the cost is so high and they’re not covered by most insurance plans at this point, people with better financial means have access to these medications,” while others may not.

Dr. Kroh said the findings may only apply to the patients, most of whom were female, White, and middle-aged. But he applauded the researchers for doing the study outside of a clinical trial. “Real-world data will help guide these decisions in the future,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Meaningful weight loss was seen with the weight loss drugs Wegovy or Ozempic regardless of whether people had previous weight loss surgery, a first-of-its-kind study reveals.

In addition, insurance coverage/expense was the most common issue for people wishing to start the popular medications, known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Side effects and drug shortages were among the reasons people stopped taking the medication.

Overall, people lost an average of 6% of their total body weight in almost 1 year of taking semaglutide, the class of drugs that includes Wegovy and Ozempic. When researchers compared people who had weight loss surgery with those who had not, total weight loss was almost identical: 5.8% in those who had surgery, vs 6.0% in those who had not.

People in this study lost a lower percentage of their total body weight, compared with people in clinical trials for the drugs, who tended to lose up to 15%, said lead investigator Pourya Medhati, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These results suggest real-world weight loss results may be different than those in carefully controlled research studies. Dr. Medhati presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 in Washington.

Total weight loss was not significantly different between men and women in the surgery group. But in the nonsurgery group, women lost 6.4%, compared with 4.8% among men, a significant difference.

Dr. Medhati and Ali Tavakkoli, MD, chief of the Division of General and GI Surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, used electronic health records to study 2491 adults prescribed semaglutide between 2018 and 2023 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Average age was 51, 74% were White, and 78% were women. A total of 13% had a history of weight loss surgery.
 

Costs, Side Effects, and Other Concerns

The investigators looked at issues around starting and staying on semaglutide in a subgroup of 500 patients. A total of 75 people never started the drug, for example. The majority, 72%, of this group said it was because of insurance coverage or the cost of the medication. Another 19% did not give a reason, and 9% said it was because of side effects.

People with higher body mass indexes and diabetes were less likely to start taking semaglutide, Dr. Medhati said.

Another 100 of the 500 patients started and then stopped semaglutide. Again, insurance coverage and cost were reasons, this time cited by 13%. About 36% stopped because of side effects; 21% pointed to a shortage of semaglutide; and 30% stopped for an unspecified reason.

“Our study highlights the importance of addressing insurance to ensure broader access,” Dr. Medhati said.

The 325 people who stayed on semaglutide lost an average of 8.5% of their total body weight at 50 weeks.
 

Access Remains Unequal

“These medications are incredibly powerful to treat obesity and weight-related disease both for people with a history of bariatric surgery and those without,” said session co-moderator Matthew Kroh, MD, vice chair of innovation and technology in the Department of General Surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

More equitable access to semaglutide and other GLP-1s is needed, he said. “Because the cost is so high and they’re not covered by most insurance plans at this point, people with better financial means have access to these medications,” while others may not.

Dr. Kroh said the findings may only apply to the patients, most of whom were female, White, and middle-aged. But he applauded the researchers for doing the study outside of a clinical trial. “Real-world data will help guide these decisions in the future,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Meaningful weight loss was seen with the weight loss drugs Wegovy or Ozempic regardless of whether people had previous weight loss surgery, a first-of-its-kind study reveals.

In addition, insurance coverage/expense was the most common issue for people wishing to start the popular medications, known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Side effects and drug shortages were among the reasons people stopped taking the medication.

Overall, people lost an average of 6% of their total body weight in almost 1 year of taking semaglutide, the class of drugs that includes Wegovy and Ozempic. When researchers compared people who had weight loss surgery with those who had not, total weight loss was almost identical: 5.8% in those who had surgery, vs 6.0% in those who had not.

People in this study lost a lower percentage of their total body weight, compared with people in clinical trials for the drugs, who tended to lose up to 15%, said lead investigator Pourya Medhati, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These results suggest real-world weight loss results may be different than those in carefully controlled research studies. Dr. Medhati presented the findings at Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2024 in Washington.

Total weight loss was not significantly different between men and women in the surgery group. But in the nonsurgery group, women lost 6.4%, compared with 4.8% among men, a significant difference.

Dr. Medhati and Ali Tavakkoli, MD, chief of the Division of General and GI Surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, used electronic health records to study 2491 adults prescribed semaglutide between 2018 and 2023 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Average age was 51, 74% were White, and 78% were women. A total of 13% had a history of weight loss surgery.
 

Costs, Side Effects, and Other Concerns

The investigators looked at issues around starting and staying on semaglutide in a subgroup of 500 patients. A total of 75 people never started the drug, for example. The majority, 72%, of this group said it was because of insurance coverage or the cost of the medication. Another 19% did not give a reason, and 9% said it was because of side effects.

People with higher body mass indexes and diabetes were less likely to start taking semaglutide, Dr. Medhati said.

Another 100 of the 500 patients started and then stopped semaglutide. Again, insurance coverage and cost were reasons, this time cited by 13%. About 36% stopped because of side effects; 21% pointed to a shortage of semaglutide; and 30% stopped for an unspecified reason.

“Our study highlights the importance of addressing insurance to ensure broader access,” Dr. Medhati said.

The 325 people who stayed on semaglutide lost an average of 8.5% of their total body weight at 50 weeks.
 

Access Remains Unequal

“These medications are incredibly powerful to treat obesity and weight-related disease both for people with a history of bariatric surgery and those without,” said session co-moderator Matthew Kroh, MD, vice chair of innovation and technology in the Department of General Surgery at Cleveland Clinic.

More equitable access to semaglutide and other GLP-1s is needed, he said. “Because the cost is so high and they’re not covered by most insurance plans at this point, people with better financial means have access to these medications,” while others may not.

Dr. Kroh said the findings may only apply to the patients, most of whom were female, White, and middle-aged. But he applauded the researchers for doing the study outside of a clinical trial. “Real-world data will help guide these decisions in the future,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — In contrast with a previous study that found glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists associated with an increased risk for acute pancreatitis and bowel obstruction, a new retrospective study found no significant link to these complications. The new data did, however, reinforce an association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis and biliary disease, specifically gallstones.

One of the big differences from the previous study, published in JAMA in October 2023 by Sodhi and colleagues , is that the current research was able to account for initial body mass index (BMI), said Benjamin Liu, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

This is important, he explained in his presentation (abstract 1074) at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® 2024, because obesity on its own is associated with an increased risk for some of these gastrointestinal (GI) outcomes.

“They did an excellent study,” Dr. Liu said. “But their platform did not allow them to match participants for BMI.”

Another distinction between the two studies is that the JAMA study excluded people who had diabetes 90 days before or 30 days following the start of GLP-1 therapy.

Instead, Dr. Liu said, he and colleague Gengqing Song, MD, “just made it simple” and excluded anyone with diabetes or an A1c ≥ 6.5.

We didn’t want participants with diabetes because “we were looking at GLP-1s for weight loss,” Dr. Liu explained.

Although some clinical trials have already assessed adverse events of these medications, “clinical trials are not always a perfect representation of the real world,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “So, it’s important to do real-world studies to see just what actually goes on.”
 

Reassessing GI Complications 

In the current study, the researchers identified 105,793 patients from the TriNetX healthcare database taking a GLP-1, either semaglutide or liraglutide, for weight loss and 8794 patients taking 8 mg naltrexone/90 mg bupropion. After propensity matching, including for BMI, there were 8792 patients in each group.

They were identified in the database between 2011 and 2023. Researchers noted their first-ever occurrence of acute pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, gastroparesis, or biliary disease during the study period.

Participants had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². In addition to BMI, propensity score matching included demographics, alcohol use, smoking, hyperlipidemia, and abdominal surgery. A second analysis specifically did not match participants for BMI.

The researchers found no significant association between GLP-1s and acute pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.66-2.14).

The labeling for semaglutide and liraglutide warns about an increased risk for acute pancreatitis, “but real-world studies and clinical trials are increasingly suggesting there is no increased risk,” Dr. Liu said.

They also did not find a significant association between GLP-1s and bowel obstruction (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.69-2.18).

Despite the current findings, more research — especially prospective data — is needed to confirm pancreatitis as well as other GI risks like bowel obstruction potentially associated with GLP-1s, he added.

The study did, however, find an elevated risk for biliary disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59) in the BMI-matched cohorts.

This could be due to the rapidity of weight loss, Dr. Liu suggested. “We found that semaglutide caused more weight loss at 6 and 12 months than naltrexone/bupropion, and it did so at a faster rate. That falls in line with other data that suggest if you lose weight too fast, you actually have an increased risk of gallstones,” he said.

Rapid weight loss can release cholesterol into the body, which then collects in the bile ducts and causes gallstones. This risk for gallstone formation with rapid weight loss is also seen after bariatric surgery, Dr. Liu said.

Without BMI matching, he noted, the increased risk for biliary disease was no longer significant (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.52).

The researchers also reported a significant association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19-4.46), confirming the results of the JAMA study “but at a much lower incidence rate once we excluded all patients with diabetes,” said Dr. Liu. The JAMA study had a HR of 3.67 for gastroparesis (95% CI, 1.15-11.90).
 

Weighing in on the Results

“Overall, their study design looks sound,” said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and an author of the JAMA study. He agreed that Dr. Liu’s research confirmed their findings about gastroparesis and biliary disease.

However, “I interpret the results with intestinal obstruction and pancreatitis as more inconclusive than no risk,” he added.

Session co-moderator and gastroenterologist and motility specialist with Stanford Health Care in California, Linda Anh Bui Nguyen, MD, AGAF, said that she thinks “it’s a promising study.

“But with any retrospective study where you’re looking at ICD-10 [International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision] codes, it really depends on the coders. The code could be subjective and could be wrong,” said Dr. Nguyen, clinical professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School, California.

For example, the diagnosis of gastroparesis requires a normal endoscopy and a gastric emptying test. “But we find that, frequently, patients are being given a diagnosis of gastroparesis without the test,” she said.

An unanswered question also remains regarding how pancreatitis or biliary disease is being diagnosed: “Was it imaging, lab testing, or symptoms?” she said in an interview. “For example, if patients had pain on the right side, did they call it biliary?”

Dr. Nguyen added that it is difficult to get this kind of detail in retrospective studies. She also agreed with Dr. Liu that prospective studies are warranted.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Liu, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Nguyen had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — In contrast with a previous study that found glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists associated with an increased risk for acute pancreatitis and bowel obstruction, a new retrospective study found no significant link to these complications. The new data did, however, reinforce an association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis and biliary disease, specifically gallstones.

One of the big differences from the previous study, published in JAMA in October 2023 by Sodhi and colleagues , is that the current research was able to account for initial body mass index (BMI), said Benjamin Liu, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

This is important, he explained in his presentation (abstract 1074) at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® 2024, because obesity on its own is associated with an increased risk for some of these gastrointestinal (GI) outcomes.

“They did an excellent study,” Dr. Liu said. “But their platform did not allow them to match participants for BMI.”

Another distinction between the two studies is that the JAMA study excluded people who had diabetes 90 days before or 30 days following the start of GLP-1 therapy.

Instead, Dr. Liu said, he and colleague Gengqing Song, MD, “just made it simple” and excluded anyone with diabetes or an A1c ≥ 6.5.

We didn’t want participants with diabetes because “we were looking at GLP-1s for weight loss,” Dr. Liu explained.

Although some clinical trials have already assessed adverse events of these medications, “clinical trials are not always a perfect representation of the real world,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “So, it’s important to do real-world studies to see just what actually goes on.”
 

Reassessing GI Complications 

In the current study, the researchers identified 105,793 patients from the TriNetX healthcare database taking a GLP-1, either semaglutide or liraglutide, for weight loss and 8794 patients taking 8 mg naltrexone/90 mg bupropion. After propensity matching, including for BMI, there were 8792 patients in each group.

They were identified in the database between 2011 and 2023. Researchers noted their first-ever occurrence of acute pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, gastroparesis, or biliary disease during the study period.

Participants had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². In addition to BMI, propensity score matching included demographics, alcohol use, smoking, hyperlipidemia, and abdominal surgery. A second analysis specifically did not match participants for BMI.

The researchers found no significant association between GLP-1s and acute pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.66-2.14).

The labeling for semaglutide and liraglutide warns about an increased risk for acute pancreatitis, “but real-world studies and clinical trials are increasingly suggesting there is no increased risk,” Dr. Liu said.

They also did not find a significant association between GLP-1s and bowel obstruction (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.69-2.18).

Despite the current findings, more research — especially prospective data — is needed to confirm pancreatitis as well as other GI risks like bowel obstruction potentially associated with GLP-1s, he added.

The study did, however, find an elevated risk for biliary disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59) in the BMI-matched cohorts.

This could be due to the rapidity of weight loss, Dr. Liu suggested. “We found that semaglutide caused more weight loss at 6 and 12 months than naltrexone/bupropion, and it did so at a faster rate. That falls in line with other data that suggest if you lose weight too fast, you actually have an increased risk of gallstones,” he said.

Rapid weight loss can release cholesterol into the body, which then collects in the bile ducts and causes gallstones. This risk for gallstone formation with rapid weight loss is also seen after bariatric surgery, Dr. Liu said.

Without BMI matching, he noted, the increased risk for biliary disease was no longer significant (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.52).

The researchers also reported a significant association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19-4.46), confirming the results of the JAMA study “but at a much lower incidence rate once we excluded all patients with diabetes,” said Dr. Liu. The JAMA study had a HR of 3.67 for gastroparesis (95% CI, 1.15-11.90).
 

Weighing in on the Results

“Overall, their study design looks sound,” said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and an author of the JAMA study. He agreed that Dr. Liu’s research confirmed their findings about gastroparesis and biliary disease.

However, “I interpret the results with intestinal obstruction and pancreatitis as more inconclusive than no risk,” he added.

Session co-moderator and gastroenterologist and motility specialist with Stanford Health Care in California, Linda Anh Bui Nguyen, MD, AGAF, said that she thinks “it’s a promising study.

“But with any retrospective study where you’re looking at ICD-10 [International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision] codes, it really depends on the coders. The code could be subjective and could be wrong,” said Dr. Nguyen, clinical professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School, California.

For example, the diagnosis of gastroparesis requires a normal endoscopy and a gastric emptying test. “But we find that, frequently, patients are being given a diagnosis of gastroparesis without the test,” she said.

An unanswered question also remains regarding how pancreatitis or biliary disease is being diagnosed: “Was it imaging, lab testing, or symptoms?” she said in an interview. “For example, if patients had pain on the right side, did they call it biliary?”

Dr. Nguyen added that it is difficult to get this kind of detail in retrospective studies. She also agreed with Dr. Liu that prospective studies are warranted.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Liu, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Nguyen had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — In contrast with a previous study that found glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists associated with an increased risk for acute pancreatitis and bowel obstruction, a new retrospective study found no significant link to these complications. The new data did, however, reinforce an association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis and biliary disease, specifically gallstones.

One of the big differences from the previous study, published in JAMA in October 2023 by Sodhi and colleagues , is that the current research was able to account for initial body mass index (BMI), said Benjamin Liu, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.

This is important, he explained in his presentation (abstract 1074) at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® 2024, because obesity on its own is associated with an increased risk for some of these gastrointestinal (GI) outcomes.

“They did an excellent study,” Dr. Liu said. “But their platform did not allow them to match participants for BMI.”

Another distinction between the two studies is that the JAMA study excluded people who had diabetes 90 days before or 30 days following the start of GLP-1 therapy.

Instead, Dr. Liu said, he and colleague Gengqing Song, MD, “just made it simple” and excluded anyone with diabetes or an A1c ≥ 6.5.

We didn’t want participants with diabetes because “we were looking at GLP-1s for weight loss,” Dr. Liu explained.

Although some clinical trials have already assessed adverse events of these medications, “clinical trials are not always a perfect representation of the real world,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “So, it’s important to do real-world studies to see just what actually goes on.”
 

Reassessing GI Complications 

In the current study, the researchers identified 105,793 patients from the TriNetX healthcare database taking a GLP-1, either semaglutide or liraglutide, for weight loss and 8794 patients taking 8 mg naltrexone/90 mg bupropion. After propensity matching, including for BMI, there were 8792 patients in each group.

They were identified in the database between 2011 and 2023. Researchers noted their first-ever occurrence of acute pancreatitis, bowel obstruction, gastroparesis, or biliary disease during the study period.

Participants had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². In addition to BMI, propensity score matching included demographics, alcohol use, smoking, hyperlipidemia, and abdominal surgery. A second analysis specifically did not match participants for BMI.

The researchers found no significant association between GLP-1s and acute pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.19; 95% CI, 0.66-2.14).

The labeling for semaglutide and liraglutide warns about an increased risk for acute pancreatitis, “but real-world studies and clinical trials are increasingly suggesting there is no increased risk,” Dr. Liu said.

They also did not find a significant association between GLP-1s and bowel obstruction (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.69-2.18).

Despite the current findings, more research — especially prospective data — is needed to confirm pancreatitis as well as other GI risks like bowel obstruction potentially associated with GLP-1s, he added.

The study did, however, find an elevated risk for biliary disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59) in the BMI-matched cohorts.

This could be due to the rapidity of weight loss, Dr. Liu suggested. “We found that semaglutide caused more weight loss at 6 and 12 months than naltrexone/bupropion, and it did so at a faster rate. That falls in line with other data that suggest if you lose weight too fast, you actually have an increased risk of gallstones,” he said.

Rapid weight loss can release cholesterol into the body, which then collects in the bile ducts and causes gallstones. This risk for gallstone formation with rapid weight loss is also seen after bariatric surgery, Dr. Liu said.

Without BMI matching, he noted, the increased risk for biliary disease was no longer significant (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.96-1.52).

The researchers also reported a significant association between GLP-1s and gastroparesis (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.19-4.46), confirming the results of the JAMA study “but at a much lower incidence rate once we excluded all patients with diabetes,” said Dr. Liu. The JAMA study had a HR of 3.67 for gastroparesis (95% CI, 1.15-11.90).
 

Weighing in on the Results

“Overall, their study design looks sound,” said Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and an author of the JAMA study. He agreed that Dr. Liu’s research confirmed their findings about gastroparesis and biliary disease.

However, “I interpret the results with intestinal obstruction and pancreatitis as more inconclusive than no risk,” he added.

Session co-moderator and gastroenterologist and motility specialist with Stanford Health Care in California, Linda Anh Bui Nguyen, MD, AGAF, said that she thinks “it’s a promising study.

“But with any retrospective study where you’re looking at ICD-10 [International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision] codes, it really depends on the coders. The code could be subjective and could be wrong,” said Dr. Nguyen, clinical professor of medicine at Stanford Medical School, California.

For example, the diagnosis of gastroparesis requires a normal endoscopy and a gastric emptying test. “But we find that, frequently, patients are being given a diagnosis of gastroparesis without the test,” she said.

An unanswered question also remains regarding how pancreatitis or biliary disease is being diagnosed: “Was it imaging, lab testing, or symptoms?” she said in an interview. “For example, if patients had pain on the right side, did they call it biliary?”

Dr. Nguyen added that it is difficult to get this kind of detail in retrospective studies. She also agreed with Dr. Liu that prospective studies are warranted.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Liu, Dr. Etminan, and Dr. Nguyen had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A commercially available test for 40 genetic variants that identifies people with the “hungry gut” obesity phenotype can predict who will respond most to semaglutide for weight management, new evidence reveals.

METHODOLOGY:

• A machine learning genetic risk score can identify people with the hungry gut obesity phenotype, which has been found to be associated with greater weight loss with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and exenatide. 
• For this study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide.
• Study participants were classified as the obesity phenotype hungry gut positive (n = 51) or hungry gut negative (n = 33).
• The researchers measured total body weight loss at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and assessed the ability of the score to predict the response to semaglutide (defined as ≥ 5% of total body weight loss measured at 12 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 3 and 6 months, there were no significant differences in weight loss between the hungry gut positive and hungry gut negative groups.
• By 9 months, participants in the positive group lost 14.4% of their total body weight compared with 10.3% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .045).
• After a total of 12 months, the positive group lost 19.5% of their total body weight compared with 10.0% in case of participants in the negative group (P = .01).
• When used to predict the response to semaglutide, the area under the curve for the machine-learning genetic risk score was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

We can now tell with confidence who is going to respond to semaglutide, said Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic. “For nonresponders, we can think about other interventions or medications that we have available.”

SOURCE:

This study was presented on May 20, 2024, at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) (Abstract 638).

LIMITATIONS:

Further prospective studies are needed to assess the validity of the test in a more diverse population and with different weight loss interventions.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a partnership between Mayo Clinic and Phenomix Sciences. Dr. Acosta is a cofounder of Phenomix Sciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.