Endocrinology

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry fasting, the practice of going without food and water, has enthusiastic advocates on TikTok, X, YouTube, and other social media platforms. Devotees claim a wide range of health effects, but medical professionals advise caution to ensure that the practice does more good than harm, especially for individuals with diabetes. 

Purported benefits and risks vary, depending on who is following the regimen and how long they abstain from food and water. Advocates on social media assert that dry fasting makes “intuition skyrocket” and puts autophagy on “overdrive.” Although such statements may rev up followers, there is little evidence to support these and many other dry-fasting claims. In fact, several physicians warned about unintended consequences.

“I had one patient who followed this fasting method often, and over time she developed kidney stones that led to a severe infection,” said Deena Adimoolam, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in New York City and New Jersey. “Lack of both water and food can fuel hunger and increase the likelihood of overeating or binge eating once the fast is completed, which does not lead to weight loss. Untreated dehydration can lead to loss of consciousness.”

“For individuals with type 2 diabetes, dehydration can exacerbate hyperglycemia and increase the risk of complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA),” said Abeer Bader, lead clinical nutrition specialist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center in Boston. “Research also consistently shows that adequate hydration is crucial for maintaining physical and cognitive performance.”

Dry fasting also can lead to electrolyte imbalances, and the risk is higher for those with diabetes due to potential underlying kidney issues, Ms. Bader noted. “Prolonged dry fasting can result in nutrient deficiencies. For individuals with diabetes, maintaining adequate nutrition is crucial to manage blood sugar levels and overall health. The lack of both food and water can exacerbate deficiencies.”

Joanne Bruno, MD, an endocrinologist at NYU Langone Health, added, “Certain medications used for the management of type 2 diabetes, such as SGLT2 inhibitors, can cause dehydration. It is critical that patients stay well hydrated while on these medications to avoid serious side effects such as euglycemic DKA.”
 

What Exactly Is Dry Fasting?

Defining dry fasting, like any kind of fasting, has remained a challenge, according to authors of the first international consensus on fasting terminology, published on July 25 in Cell Metabolism. The clinical terminology “has remained heterogeneous and often confusing, with similar terms being used to define different fasting regimens ... reflecting the manifold contexts in which fasting is practiced.”

Indeed, dry fasting was among the most discussed terms by the consensus panel and went through several rounds before the panelists came to agreement. A few experts were critical of the practice, whereas those familiar with religious fasting traditions, such as during Ramadan, were clear about the importance of including this term in the consensus process.

“The dissent was resolved by the clarification that this form of fasting has historical and geographical extensions and that the present consensus process did not aim at evaluating therapeutic effectiveness or safety for any term defined,” the authors wrote.

The panel concluded that dry fasting is not the same as total or complete fasting because the latter can include water (such as water-only fasting). Their final definition of dry fasting is ‘’a fasting regimen during which a voluntary abstinence from all foods and beverages, including water, is practiced for a certain period of time.’’

Different types of fasting regimens, such as intermittent fasting, may include dry fasting, in which case it is referred to as “intermittent dry fasting.” This is defined in the consensus as intermittent fasting regimens that involve abstaining from food and fluid intake during the fasting interval, which typically lasts 9-20 hours. 

Most dry fasts, including religious ones, are maintained for a specific interval and are followed by a refeeding period. These fasts are not starvation, defined as no food or water intake for days.
 

What the Evidence Says

All that said, dry fasting by any other name remains dry fasting. “Abundant” evidence from animal studies suggests the potential of various types of fasting for disease prevention and treatment in humans, noted the authors of the consensus report, Along with the risks described above, small studies have explored short-term effects in people, all of which have yet to be established by larger and longer-term studies.

In a recent small study, researchers at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, reported that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days reduced levels of inflammatory cytokines in the 13 participants with a high body mass index. Earlier work by the group showed that dawn-to-dusk dry fasting for 30 days induced “anti-atherosclerotic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumorigenic proteome” in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 14 individuals with metabolic syndrome (The researchers declined to comment for this article.)

Importantly, the health effects can vary among individuals for unknown reasons, found a recent cross-sectional study of fasting blood glucose (FBG) changes in 181 patients with type 2 diabetes during Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF), which involves dry fasting during daylight hours for 1 month. The researchers classified participants into three groups: reduced average FBG levels (44%), no change in FBG levels (24%), and increased FBG levels (32%). The authors wrote that further studies are needed to identify factors associated with the differences and to identify “those who are great candidates for RIF.”

In contrast to some of the concerns expressed by clinicians, an exploratory study of daytime dry fasting among 34 healthy Baha’i volunteers in Germany concluded that the 19-day regimen “is safe, has no negative effects on hydration, can improve fat metabolism and can cause transient phase shifts of circadian rhythms.” The authors acknowledge that a larger number and more diverse participants are needed to validate the findings and assess the impact on long-term health.
 

What to Advise Patients

For patients who want to fast as part of their weight loss regimen or to help manage diabetes, clinicians can consider suggesting “alternate ways of eating that might achieve similar goals,” Ms. Bader said. One is intermittent fasting without dry fasting: the 16:8 method (16 hours of fasting, 8 hours of eating) or the 5:2 method (normal eating for 5 days, reduced calorie intake for 2 days), which can support improved insulin sensitivity and metabolic health.

Caloric restriction can also work if the patient maintains a balanced diet that includes all essential nutrients, she said. A low-carbohydrate diet that focuses on limiting carbohydrate intake while increasing consumption of lean proteins and healthy fats has been shown to lower blood sugar levels and improve insulin sensitivity.

Other healthy strategies for patients include the Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and lean proteins such as fish, or a similar plant-based diet with less animal protein. Ms. Bader advises cultivating mindful eating, which involves paying attention to hunger and fullness cues, making thoughtful food choices, and focusing on being present during meals.

“Each of these dietary strategies offers potential benefits for managing type 2 diabetes and improving overall health,” Ms. Bader said. “I have not had any patients who have tried dry fasting specifically. However, I have encountered scenarios where individuals abstained from food and beverages due to religious practices. In those cases, we focused on ensuring that they maintained proper hydration and balanced nutrition during their eating periods to manage their diabetes effectively and prevent complications.”

Overall, Dr. Adimoolam suggests that clinicians help patients find a weight-loss plan that works best for them based on understanding the calories in the foods they like and don’t like. For fasting regimens, patients can be encouraged to choose one with fluids when possible, as well as intervals of time to fast and eat that work best for their lifestyle.

Ms. Bader, Dr. Bruno, and Dr. Adimoolam report no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

Consider this: If you’re taking your children to the beach, how do you protect them from drowning? You don’t tell them, “Don’t go into the ocean.” You teach them how to swim; you give them floaties; and you accompany them in the water and go in only when a lifeguard is present. In other words, you give them all the tools to protect themselves because you know they will go into the ocean anyway. 

Patients are diving into the ocean. Patients with obesity, who know that a treatment for their disease exists but is inaccessible, are diving into the ocean. Unfortunately, they are diving in without floaties or a lifeguard, and well-meaning bystanders are simply telling them to not go. 

Compounded peptides are an ocean of alternative therapies. Even though compounding pharmacists need specialized training, facilities and equipment need to be properly certified, and final dosage forms need extensive testing, pharmacies are not equal when it comes to sterile compounding. Regulatory agencies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have expressed caution around compounded semaglutide. Professional societies such as the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) advise against compounded peptides because they lack clinical trials that prove their safety and efficacy. Ask any individual doctor and you are likely to receive a range of opinions. 

As an endocrinologist specializing in obesity, I practice evidence-based medicine as much as possible. However, I also recognize how today’s dysfunctional medical system compels patients to dive into that ocean in search of an alternative solution. 

Doctors can’t be lifeguards, but we can at least empower patients who want to decide for themselves whether the risk of compounded peptides is worth it. 

With the help of pharmacists, compounding pharmacists, researchers, and clinicians, here is a checklist for patients who seek compounded semaglutide or tirzepatide: 

• Check the state licensing board website to see if there have been any complaints or disciplinary actions made against the pharmacy facility. These government-maintained websites vary in searchability and user-friendliness, but you are specifically looking for whether the FDA ever issued a 483 form.
• Ask for the pharmacy’s state board inspection report. There should be at least one of these reports, issued at the pharmacy’s founding, and there may be more depending on individual state regulations on frequencies of inspections.
• Ask if the compounding pharmacy is accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB). Accreditation is an extra optional step that some compounding pharmacies take to be legitimized by a third party.
• Ask if the pharmacy follows Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). CGMP is not required of 503a pharmacies, which are pharmacies that provide semaglutide or tirzepatide directly to patients, but following CGMP means an extra level of quality assurance. The bare minimum for anyone doing sterile compounding in the United States is to meet the standards found in the US Pharmacopeia, chapter <797>, Sterile Compounding.
• Ask your compounding pharmacy where they source the medication’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API).
• Find out if this supplier is registered with the FDA by searching here or here.
• Confirm that semaglutide base, not semaglutide salt, is used in the compounding process.
• Request a certificate of analysis (COA) of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which should be semaglutide base. This shows you whether the medication has impurities or byproducts due to its manufacturing process.
• Ask if they have third-party confirmation of potency, stability, and sterility testing of the final product.

In generating this guidance, I’m not endorsing compounded peptides, and in fact, I recognize that there is nothing keeping small-time compounding pharmacies from skirting some of these quality measures, falsifying records, and flying under the radar. However, I hope this checklist serves as a starting point for education and risk mitigation. If a compounder is unwilling or unable to answer these questions, consider it a red flag and look elsewhere. 

In an ideal world, the state regulators or the FDA would proactively supervise instead of reactively monitor; trusted compounding pharmacies would be systematically activated to ease medication shortages; and patients with obesity would have access to safe and efficacious treatments for their disease. Until then, we as providers can acknowledge the disappointments of our healthcare system while still developing realistic and individualized solutions that prioritize patient care and safety. 
 

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine, and a physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York. She is an adviser for Novo Nordisk, which manufactures Wegovy, and an adviser for Ro, a telehealth company that offers compounded semaglutide, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

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

TOPLINE:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater availability of peripheral tri-iodothyronine (T3), indicated by higher concentrations of free T3, T3, and T3/thyroxine (T4) ratio, is associated with increased liver fat content at baseline and a greater liver fat reduction following a dietary intervention known to reduce liver fat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Systemic hypothyroidism and subclinical hypothyroidism are proposed as independent risk factors for steatotic liver disease, but there are conflicting results in euthyroid individuals with normal thyroid function.
• Researchers investigated the association between thyroid function and intrahepatic lipids in 332 euthyroid individuals aged 50-80 years who reported limited alcohol consumption and had at least one condition for unhealthy aging (eg, cardiovascular disease).
• The analysis drew on a sub-cohort from the NutriAct trial, in which participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group (diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids, plant protein, and fiber) or a control group (following the German Nutrition Society recommendations).
• The relationship between changes in intrahepatic lipid content and thyroid hormone parameters was evaluated in 243 individuals with data available at 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of free T3 and T3/T4 ratio were associated with increased liver fat content at baseline (P = .03 and P = .01, respectively).
• After 12 months, both the intervention and control groups showed reductions in liver fat content, along with similar reductions in free T3, total T3, T3/T4 ratio, and free T3/free T4 ratio (all P < .01).
• Thyroid stimulating hormone, T4, and free T4 levels remained stable in either group during the intervention.
• Participants who maintained higher T3 levels during the dietary intervention experienced a greater reduction in liver fat content over 12 months (Rho = −0.133; P = .039).

IN PRACTICE:

“A higher peripheral concentration of active THs [thyroid hormones] might reflect a compensatory mechanism in subjects with mildly increased IHL [intrahepatic lipid] content and early stages of MASLD [metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Miriam Sommer-Ballarini, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. It was published online in the European Journal of Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Participants younger than 50 years of age and with severe hepatic disease, severe substance abuse, or active cancer were excluded, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Because the study cohort had only mildly elevated median intrahepatic lipid content at baseline, it may not be suited to address the advanced stages of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. The study’s findings are based on a specific dietary intervention, which may not be applicable to other dietary patterns or populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded this study. Some authors declared receiving funding, serving as consultants, or being employed by relevant private companies.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified specific gut microbiota associated with vulnerability to food addiction and others that might be protective against the disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

• Food addiction, characterized by a loss of control over food intake, may promote obesity and alter gut microbiota composition.
• Researchers used the Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0 criteria to classify extreme food addiction and nonaddiction in mouse models and humans.
• The gut microbiota between addicted and nonaddicted mice were compared to identify factors related to food addiction in the murine model. Researchers subsequently gave mice drinking water with the prebiotics lactulose or rhamnose and the bacterium Blautia wexlerae, which has been associated with a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes.
• Gut microbiota signatures were also analyzed in 15 individuals with food addiction and 13 matched controls.

TAKEAWAY:

• In both humans and mice, gut microbiome signatures suggested possible nonbeneficial effects of bacteria in the Proteobacteria phylum and potential protective effects of Actinobacteria against the development of food addiction.
• In correlational analyses, decreased relative abundance of the species B wexlerae was observed in addicted humans and of the Blautia genus in addicted mice.
• Administration of the nondigestible carbohydrates lactulose and rhamnose, known to favor Blautia growth, led to increased relative abundance of Blautia in mouse feces, as well as “dramatic improvements” in food addiction.
• In functional validation experiments, oral administration of B wexlerae in mice led to similar improvement.

IN PRACTICE:

“This novel understanding of the role of gut microbiota in the development of food addiction may open new approaches for developing biomarkers and innovative therapies for food addiction and related eating disorders,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Solveiga Samulėnaitė, a doctoral student at Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

Further research is needed to elucidate the exact mechanisms underlying the potential use of gut microbiota for treating food addiction and to test the safety and efficacy in humans.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by La Caixa Health and numerous grants from Spanish ministries and institutions and the European Union. No competing interests were declared.

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

Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.

Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver

When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.

But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).¹ A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.² Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.

In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.³ The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.⁴

Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients

Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.⁵ Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.

Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.⁶ Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.

Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.⁷ Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁸ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
 

Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly

Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.

2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.

3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.

5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.

6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.

7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.

8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.

9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.

Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.

Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver

When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.

But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).¹ A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.² Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.

In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.³ The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.⁴

Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients

Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.⁵ Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.

Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.⁶ Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.

Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.⁷ Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁸ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
 

Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly

Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.

2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.

3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.

5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.

6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.

7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.

8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.

9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.

Recently, a patient of mine was hospitalized with chest pain. She was diagnosed with an acute coronary syndrome and started on a statin in addition to a beta-blocker, aspirin, and clopidogrel. After discharge, she had symptoms of dizziness and recurrent chest pain and her first thought was to stop the statin because she believed that her symptoms were statin-related side effects. I will cover a few areas where I think that there are some misunderstandings about statins.

Statins Are Not Bad For the Liver

When lovastatin first became available for prescription in the 1980s, frequent monitoring of transaminases was recommended. Patients and healthcare professionals became accustomed to frequent liver tests to monitor for statin toxicity, and to this day, some healthcare professionals still obtain liver function tests for this purpose.

But is there a reason to do this? Pfeffer and colleagues reported on the results of over 112,000 people enrolled in the West of Scotland Coronary Protection trial and found that the percentage of patients with any abnormal liver function test was similar (> 3 times the upper limit of normal for ALT) for patients taking pravastatin (1.4%) and for patients taking placebo (1.4%).¹ A panel of liver experts concurred that statin-associated transaminase elevations were not indicative of liver damage or dysfunction.² Furthermore, they noted that chronic liver disease and compensated cirrhosis were not contraindications to statin use.

In a small study, use of low-dose atorvastatin in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis improved transaminase values in 75% of patients and liver steatosis and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores were significantly improved on biopsy in most of the patients.³ The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the recommendation for routine regular monitoring of liver function for patients on statins in 2012.⁴

Statins Do Not Cause Muscle Pain in Most Patients

Most muscle pain occurring in patients on statins is not due to the statin although patient concerns about muscle pain are common. In a meta-analysis of 19 large statin trials, 27.1% of participants treated with a statin reported at least one episode of muscle pain or weakness during a median of 4.3 years, compared with 26.6% of participants treated with placebo.⁵ Muscle pain for any reason is common, and patients on statins may stop therapy because of the symptoms.

Cohen and colleagues performed a survey of past and current statin users, asking about muscle symptoms.⁶ Muscle-related side effects were reported by 60% of former statin users and 25% of current users.

Herrett and colleagues performed an extensive series of n-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.⁷ Participants received either 2-month blocks of atorvastatin 20 mg or 2-month blocks of placebo, six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a visual analogue scale at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further when they planned an n-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁸ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on a random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity score was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).
 

Statins Are Likely Helpful In the Very Elderly

Should we be using statins for primary prevention in our very old patients? For many years the answer was generally “no” on the basis of a lack of evidence. Patients in their 80s often were not included in clinical trials. The much used American Heart Association risk calculator stops at age 79. Given the prevalence of coronary artery disease in patients as they reach their 80s, wouldn’t primary prevention really be secondary prevention? Xu and colleagues in a recent study compared outcomes for patients who were treated with statins for primary prevention with a group who were not. In the patients aged 75-84 there was a risk reduction for major cardiovascular events of 1.2% over 5 years, and for those 85 and older the risk reduction was 4.4%. Importantly, there were no significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction in either age group.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Pfeffer MA et al. Circulation. 2002;105(20):2341-6.

2. Cohen DE et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.

3. Hyogo H et al. Metabolism. 2008;57(12):1711-8.

4. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. 2012 Feb 28.

5. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet. 2022;400(10355):832-45.

6. Cohen JD et al. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(3):208-15.

7. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n1355.

8. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2182-4.

9. Xu W et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024;177(6):701-10.

TOPLINE:

Higher energy intake and glycemic load in the late morning are associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Hispanic/Latino adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Glucose tolerance peaks in the morning and declines in the afternoon and evening in individuals without diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study enrolling 8868 Hispanic/Latino adults (mean age, 38.7 years; 51.5% women) without diabetes across four US communities between 2008 and 2011, with a second clinic examination conducted between 2014 and 2017.
• Meal timing was categorized into five periods: Early morning (6:00-8:59 AM), late morning (9:00-11:59 AM), afternoon (12:00-5:59 PM), evening (6:00-11:59 PM), and night (0:00-5:59 AM).
• Participants’ energy intake and glycemic load for each period were assessed at baseline using two 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Incident diabetes was identified through annual follow-up calls or at the second clinic examination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each 100-kcal increment in energy intake and 10-unit increment in glycemic load in the late morning was associated with a 6% and 7% lower risk for T2D, respectively (both P = .001), independent of total energy intake, diet quality, and other confounders.
• No such association was found between energy intake and glycemic load in early morning, afternoon, evening, or night meal timings and the risk for diabetes.
• Substituting 100 kcal of energy intake from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents was associated with a 5% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).
• Similarly, substituting 10 units of energy-adjusted glycemic load from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents yielded a 7%-9% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings further enhance the existing literature by demonstrating the potential long-term promise of eating in alignment with the diurnal rhythm of glucose tolerance for diabetes prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jin Dai, PhD, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on only two 24-hour self-reported dietary recalls may have introduced measurement error. Diabetes was self-reported, which may have led to outcome misclassification. The study’s relatively short follow-up time may have introduced reverse causation bias. As most patients had T2D, the findings predominately apply to this diabetes subtype. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher energy intake and glycemic load in the late morning are associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Hispanic/Latino adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Glucose tolerance peaks in the morning and declines in the afternoon and evening in individuals without diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study enrolling 8868 Hispanic/Latino adults (mean age, 38.7 years; 51.5% women) without diabetes across four US communities between 2008 and 2011, with a second clinic examination conducted between 2014 and 2017.
• Meal timing was categorized into five periods: Early morning (6:00-8:59 AM), late morning (9:00-11:59 AM), afternoon (12:00-5:59 PM), evening (6:00-11:59 PM), and night (0:00-5:59 AM).
• Participants’ energy intake and glycemic load for each period were assessed at baseline using two 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Incident diabetes was identified through annual follow-up calls or at the second clinic examination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each 100-kcal increment in energy intake and 10-unit increment in glycemic load in the late morning was associated with a 6% and 7% lower risk for T2D, respectively (both P = .001), independent of total energy intake, diet quality, and other confounders.
• No such association was found between energy intake and glycemic load in early morning, afternoon, evening, or night meal timings and the risk for diabetes.
• Substituting 100 kcal of energy intake from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents was associated with a 5% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).
• Similarly, substituting 10 units of energy-adjusted glycemic load from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents yielded a 7%-9% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings further enhance the existing literature by demonstrating the potential long-term promise of eating in alignment with the diurnal rhythm of glucose tolerance for diabetes prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jin Dai, PhD, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on only two 24-hour self-reported dietary recalls may have introduced measurement error. Diabetes was self-reported, which may have led to outcome misclassification. The study’s relatively short follow-up time may have introduced reverse causation bias. As most patients had T2D, the findings predominately apply to this diabetes subtype. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher energy intake and glycemic load in the late morning are associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Hispanic/Latino adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Glucose tolerance peaks in the morning and declines in the afternoon and evening in individuals without diabetes.
• Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study enrolling 8868 Hispanic/Latino adults (mean age, 38.7 years; 51.5% women) without diabetes across four US communities between 2008 and 2011, with a second clinic examination conducted between 2014 and 2017.
• Meal timing was categorized into five periods: Early morning (6:00-8:59 AM), late morning (9:00-11:59 AM), afternoon (12:00-5:59 PM), evening (6:00-11:59 PM), and night (0:00-5:59 AM).
• Participants’ energy intake and glycemic load for each period were assessed at baseline using two 24-hour dietary recalls.
• Incident diabetes was identified through annual follow-up calls or at the second clinic examination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Each 100-kcal increment in energy intake and 10-unit increment in glycemic load in the late morning was associated with a 6% and 7% lower risk for T2D, respectively (both P = .001), independent of total energy intake, diet quality, and other confounders.
• No such association was found between energy intake and glycemic load in early morning, afternoon, evening, or night meal timings and the risk for diabetes.
• Substituting 100 kcal of energy intake from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents was associated with a 5% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).
• Similarly, substituting 10 units of energy-adjusted glycemic load from the early morning, afternoon, or evening with late-morning equivalents yielded a 7%-9% lower risk for diabetes (all P < .05).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings further enhance the existing literature by demonstrating the potential long-term promise of eating in alignment with the diurnal rhythm of glucose tolerance for diabetes prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jin Dai, PhD, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on only two 24-hour self-reported dietary recalls may have introduced measurement error. Diabetes was self-reported, which may have led to outcome misclassification. The study’s relatively short follow-up time may have introduced reverse causation bias. As most patients had T2D, the findings predominately apply to this diabetes subtype. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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 first appeared on Medscape.com.

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

An intermittent fasting (IF) diet and a standard healthy living (HL) diet focused on healthy foods both lead to weight loss, reduced insulin resistance (IR), and slowed brain aging in older overweight adults with IR, new research showed. However, neither diet has an effect on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers.

Although investigators found both diets were beneficial, some outcomes were more robust with the IF diet.

“The study provides a blueprint for assessing brain effects of dietary interventions and motivates further research on intermittent fasting and continuous diets for brain health optimization,” wrote the investigators, led by Dimitrios Kapogiannis, MD, chief, human neuroscience section, National Institute on Aging, and adjunct associate professor of neurology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The findings were published online in Cell Metabolism.
 

Cognitive Outcomes

The prevalence of IR — reduced cellular sensitivity to insulin that’s a hallmark of type 2 diabetes — increases with age and obesity, adding to an increased risk for accelerated brain aging as well as AD and related dementias (ADRD) in older adults who have overweight.

Studies reported healthy diets promote overall health, but it’s unclear whether, and to what extent, they improve brain health beyond general health enhancement.

Researchers used multiple brain and cognitive measures to assess dietary effects on brain health, including peripherally harvested neuron-derived extracellular vesicles (NDEVs) to probe neuronal insulin signaling; MRI to investigate the pace of brain aging; magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure brain glucose, metabolites, and neurotransmitters; and NDEVs and cerebrospinal fluid to derive biomarkers for AD/ADRD.

The study included 40 cognitively intact overweight participants with IR, mean age 63.2 years, 60% women, and 62.5% White. Their mean body weight was 97.1 kg and mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.4.

Participants were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of an IF diet or a HL diet that emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy and limits added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.

The IF diet involved following the HL diet for 5 days per week and restricting calories to a quarter of the recommended daily intake for 2 consecutive days.

Both diets reduced neuronal IR and had comparable effects in improving insulin signaling biomarkers in NDEVs, reducing brain glucose on MRS, and improving blood biomarkers of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.

Using MRI, researchers also assessed brain age, an indication of whether the brain appears older or younger than an individual’s chronological age. There was a decrease of 2.63 years with the IF diet (P = .05) and 2.42 years with the HL diet (P < .001) in the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Both diets improved executive function and memory, with those following the IF diet benefiting more in strategic planning, switching between two cognitively demanding tasks, cued recall, and other areas.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

AD biomarkers including amyloid beta 42 (Aß42), Aß40, and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 did not change with either diet, a finding that investigators speculated may be due to the short duration of the study. Light-chain neurofilaments increased across groups with no differences between the diets.

In other findings, BMI decreased by 1.41 with the IF diet and by 0.80 with the HL diet, and a similar pattern was observed for weight. Waist circumference decreased in both groups with no significant differences between diets.

An exploratory analysis showed executive function improved with the IF diet but not with the HL diet in women, whereas it improved with both diets in men. BMI and apolipoprotein E and SLC16A7 genotypes also modulated diet effects.

Both diets were well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal and occurred only with the IF diet.

The authors noted the findings are preliminary and results are hypothesis generating. Study limitations included the study’s short duration and its power to detect anything other than large to moderate effect size changes and differences between the diets. Researchers also didn’t acquire data on dietary intake, so lapses in adherence can’t be excluded. However, the large decreases in BMI, weight, and waist circumference with both diets indicated high adherence.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no competing interests.
 

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

A few months ago, my health system added a clinical decision support function to our electronic health record to reduce inappropriate ordering of vitamin D levels. Clinicians are now required to select from a list of approved indications or diagnoses (including a history of vitamin D deficiency) before ordering the test.

Although I don’t know yet whether this process has had the desired effect, I felt that it was long overdue. Several years ago, I wrote an editorial that questioned the dramatic increase in vitamin D testing given the uncertainty about what level is adequate for good health and clinical trials showing that supplementing people with lower levels has no benefits for a variety of medical conditions. A more recent review of prospective studies of vitamin D supplements concluded that most correlations between vitamin D levels and outcomes in common and high-mortality conditions are unlikely to be causal.

A new Endocrine Society guideline recommends against routine measurement of vitamin D levels in healthy individuals. The guideline reinforces my current practice of not screening for vitamin D deficiency except in special situations, such as an individual with dark skin who works the night shift and rarely goes outdoors during daytime hours. But I haven’t been offering empirical vitamin D supplements to the four at-risk groups identified by the Endocrine Society: children, adults older than 75 years, pregnant patients, and adults with prediabetes. The evidence behind these recommendations merits a closer look.

In exclusively or primarily breastfed infants, I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation to prescribe a daily supplement containing 400 IU of vitamin D. However, the Endocrine Society found evidence from several studies conducted in other countries that continuing supplementation throughout childhood reduces the risk for rickets and possibly reduces the incidence of respiratory infections, with few adverse effects.

Many older women, and some older men, choose to take a calcium and vitamin D supplement for bone health, even though there is scant evidence that doing so prevents fractures in community-dwelling adults without osteoporosis. The Endocrine Society’s meta-analysis, however, found that 1000 adults aged 75 years or older who took an average of 900 IU of vitamin D daily for 2 years could expect to experience six fewer deaths than an identical group not taking supplements.

A typical prenatal vitamin contains 400 IU of vitamin D. Placebo-controlled trials reviewed by the Endocrine Society that gave an average of 2500 IU daily found statistically insignificant reductions in preeclampsia, intrauterine death, preterm birth, small for gestation age birth, and neonatal deaths.

Finally, the Endocrine Society’s recommendation for adults with prediabetes was based on 11 trials (three conducted in the United States) that tested a daily average of 3500 IU and found a slightly lower risk for progression to diabetes (24 fewer diagnoses of type 2 diabetes per 1000 persons) in the group who took supplements.

Of the four groups highlighted by the guideline, the strongest case for vitamin D supplements is in older adults — it’s hard to argue with lower mortality, even if the difference is small. Therefore, I will start suggesting that my patients over age 75 take a daily vitamin D supplement containing at least 800 IU if they aren’t already doing so.

On the other hand, I don’t plan to change my approach to pregnant patients (whose benefits in studies could have been due to chance), children after age 1 year (studies of children in other countries with different nutritional status may not apply to the United States), or adults with prediabetes (where we already have proven lifestyle interventions with much greater effects). In these cases, either I am unconvinced that the data support benefits for my patients, or I feel that the benefits of vitamin D supplements are small enough to be outweighed by potential harms, such as increased kidney stones.

Kenneth W. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The rapid adoption of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for the treatment of diabetes and weight loss has led to a corresponding interest in their potential side effects. Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. 

Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients. 
 

Aspiration Risks

Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration. 

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures. 

In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue. 

In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations. 

Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted. 

The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration. 

The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications. 

These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods. 

There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids. 

Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging. 
 

Association With GI Adverse Events

A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%). 

Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis. 

A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown. 

Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation. 

Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes. 
 

A Lack of Hepatic Concerns

GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase). 

GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.

The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. 

Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. 
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The rapid adoption of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for the treatment of diabetes and weight loss has led to a corresponding interest in their potential side effects. Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. 

Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients. 
 

Aspiration Risks

Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration. 

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures. 

In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue. 

In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations. 

Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted. 

The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration. 

The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications. 

These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods. 

There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids. 

Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging. 
 

Association With GI Adverse Events

A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%). 

Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis. 

A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown. 

Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation. 

Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes. 
 

A Lack of Hepatic Concerns

GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase). 

GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.

The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. 

Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. 
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The rapid adoption of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for the treatment of diabetes and weight loss has led to a corresponding interest in their potential side effects. Several recent studies have sought to expound upon what role, if any, GLP-1 RAs may have in increasing the risk for specific gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. 

Herein is a summary of the most current information on this topic, as well as my best guidance for clinicians on integrating it into the clinical care of their patients. 
 

Aspiration Risks

Albiglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are among the class of medications known as GLP-1 RAs. These medications all work by mimicking the action of hormonal incretins, which are released postprandially. Incretins affect the pancreatic glucose-dependent release of insulin, inhibit release of glucagon, stimulate satiety, and reduce gastric emptying. This last effect has raised concerns that patients taking GLP-1 RAs might be at an elevated risk for endoscopy-related aspiration. 

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists released recommendations asking providers to consider holding back GLP-1 RAs in patients with scheduled elective procedures. 

In August 2023, five national GI societies — the American Gastroenterological Association, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition — issued their own joint statement on the issue. 

In the absence of sufficient evidence, these groups suggested that healthcare providers “exercise best practices when performing endoscopy on these patients on GLP-1 [RAs].” They called for more data and encouraged key stakeholders to work together to develop the necessary evidence to provide guidance for these patients prior to elective endoscopy. A rapid clinical update issued by the American Gastroenterological Association in 2024 was consistent with these earlier multisociety recommendations. 

Two studies presented at 2024’s Digestive Disease Week provided additional reassurance that concerns about aspiration with these medications were perhaps unwarranted. 

The first (since published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology ) was a case-control study of 16,295 patients undergoing upper endoscopy, among whom 306 were taking GLP-1 RAs. It showed a higher rate of solid gastric residue among those taking GLP-1 RAs compared with controls (14% vs 4%, respectively). Patients who had prolonged fasting and clear liquids for concurrent colonoscopy had lower residue rates (2% vs 11%, respectively). However, there were no recorded incidents of procedural complications or aspiration. 

The second was a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX, a federated cloud-based network pulling millions of data points from multiple US healthcare organizations. It found that the incidence of aspiration pneumonitis and emergent intubation during or immediately after esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy among those taking GLP-1 RAs was not increased compared with those not taking these medications. 

These were followed in June 2024 by a systematic review and meta-analysis published by Hiramoto and colleagues, which included 15 studies. The researchers showed a 36-minute prolongation for solid-food emptying and no delay in liquid emptying for patients taking GLP-1 RAs vs controls. The authors concluded that the minimal delay in solid-food emptying would be offset by standard preprocedural fasting periods. 

There is concern that patients with complicated type 2 diabetes may have a bit more of a risk for aspiration. However, this was not supported by an analysis from Barlowe and colleagues, who used a national claims database to identify 15,119 patients with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1 RAs. They found no increased events of pulmonary complications (ie, aspiration, pneumonia, respiratory failure) within 14 days following esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Additional evidence suggests that the risk for aspiration in these patients seems to be offset by prolonged fasting and intake of clear liquids. 

Although physicians clearly need to use clinical judgment when performing endoscopic procedures on these patients, the emerging evidence on safety has been encouraging. 
 

Association With GI Adverse Events

A recent retrospective analysis of real-world data from 10,328 new users of GLP-1 RAs with diabetes/obesity reported that the most common GI adverse events in this cohort were abdominal pain (57.6%), constipation (30.4%), diarrhea (32.7%), nausea and vomiting (23.4%), GI bleeding (15.9%), gastroparesis (5.1%), and pancreatitis (3.4%). 

Notably, dulaglutide and liraglutide had higher rates of abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting than did semaglutide and exenatide. Compared with semaglutide, dulaglutide and liraglutide had slightly higher odds of abdominal pain, gastroparesis, and nausea and vomiting. There were no significant differences between the GLP-1 RAs in the risk for GI bleeding or pancreatitis. 

A 2023 report in JAMA observed that the risk for bowel obstruction is also elevated among patients using these agents for weight loss. Possible reasons for this are currently unknown. 

Studies are needed to analyze possible variations in safety profiles between GLP-1 RAs to better guide selection of these drugs, particularly in patients with GI risk factors. Furthermore, the causal relationship between GLP-1 RAs with other concomitant medications requires further investigation. 

Although relatively infrequent, the risk for GI adverse events should be given special consideration by providers when prescribing them for weight loss, because the risk/benefit ratios may be different from those in patients with diabetes. 
 

A Lack of Hepatic Concerns

GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated a significant impact on body weight and glycemic control, as well as beneficial effects on clinical, biochemical, and histologic markers in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). These favorable changes are evident by reductions in the hepatic cytolysis markers (ie, aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase). 

GLP-1 RAs may provide a protective function by reducing the accumulation of hepatic triglycerides and expression of several collagen genes. Some preclinical data suggest a risk reduction for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, and animal studies indicate that complete suppression of hepatic carcinogenesis is achieved with liraglutide.

The most recent assessment of risk reduction for MASLD progression comes from a Scandinavian cohort analysis of national registries. In looking at 91,479 patients using GLP-1 RAs, investigators demonstrated this treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the composite primary endpoint of hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as both compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. 

Given the various favorable hepatic effects of GLP-1 RAs, it is likely that the composite benefit on MASLD is multifactorial. The current literature is clear that it is safe to use these agents across the spectrum of MASLD with or without fibrosis, although it must be noted that GLP-1 RAs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this indication. 
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.