Obesity

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — The anti-obesity drug semaglutide is associated with significant reductions in the inflammatory marker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), even in patients who do not lose substantial amounts of weight with the drug, according to data from the SELECT clinical trial.

The research, presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society 2024, involved over 17,600 patients with overweight or obesity and had established cardiovascular disease but not diabetes.

Those given semaglutide experienced a 38% reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with placebo regardless of baseline body mass index, statin use, cholesterol levels, and other measures.

“Weight loss was associated with greater high-sensitivity CRP reduction in both treatment groups,” said study presenter Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of Preventive Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, but “with increased high-sensitivity CRP reductions in those receiving semaglutide.”

The drug also “significantly reduced high-sensitivity CRP early,” he said, “prior to major weight loss and in those who did not lose significant amounts of weight.” The reductions reached approximately 12% at 4 weeks and around 20% at 8 weeks, when the weight loss “was still quite modest,” at 2% and 3% of body weight, respectively. Even among patients who achieved weight loss of less than 2% body weight, semaglutide was associated with a reduction in high-sensitivity CRP levels.

In the SELECT trial, semaglutide also resulted in a consistent reduction of around 20% vs placebo in major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

But Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said in an interview that body weight “is probably the major driver” of CRP levels in the population, accounting for between 20% and 30% of the variation.

Dr. Sattar, who was not involved in the study, said that because drugs like semaglutide lower weight but also have anti-inflammatory effects, the question becomes: “Could the anti-inflammatory effects be part of the mechanisms by which these drugs affect the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events?”
 

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

The current analysis, however, cannot answer the question, he said. “All it tells us is about associations.”

“What we do know is semaglutide, predominantly by lowering weight, is lowering CRP levels and equally, we know that when you lose weight, you improve blood pressure, you improve lipids, and you reduce the risk of diabetes,” he said.

Dr. Sattar also took issue with the researchers’ conclusion that the high-sensitivity CRP reductions seen in SELECT occurred prior to major weight loss because the “pattern of CRP reduction and weight reduction is almost identical.”

Dr. Sattar also pointed out in a recent editorial that the drug appears to have a direct effect on blood vessels and the heart, which may lead to improvements in systemic inflammation. Consequently, he said, any assertion that semaglutide is genuinely anti-inflammatory is, at this stage, “speculation.”

Dr. Plutzky said that “systemic, chronic inflammation is implicated as a potential mechanism and therapeutic target in atherosclerosis and major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as obesity,” and high-sensitivity CRP levels are an “established biomarker of inflammation and have been shown to predict cardiovascular risk.”

However, the relationship between high-sensitivity CRP, responses to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists like semaglutide, and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity “remains incompletely understood,” said Dr. Plutzky.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear colleagues,

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are revolutionizing the field of obesity management and are now common medication in patients presenting for endoscopy. With their effect on gastric emptying, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has recommended cessation of such agents prior to endoscopy. However, is this necessary in patients who have been on a clear liquid diet in preparation for a colonoscopy or who are undergoing moderate sedation? Additionally, there are risks to holding GLP-1 RAs, especially for those taking them for glycemic control.

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot discuss the nuances of pre-procedure cessation from an anesthesiologist’s perspective. Dr. Jana Al Hashash provides a gastroenterologist’s view, also highlighting the current paucity of evidence guiding management strategies. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in managing GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopy in your own practice. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Connecticut) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. HICKEY, MD; RYAN C. POULIOT, MD

In response to the recent dramatic increase in GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) prescribing and at the urging of its membership, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued guidance on the preoperative management of these medications. The big takeaways were recommendations that patients on daily dosing should hold their dose on the day of a procedure, and that patients on weekly dosing should hold their dose a week prior.

The ASA guidance recognizes the sparse available evidence base and makes its recommendations in the spirit of patient safety, presuming that a more conservative approach will mitigate risk of rare but potentially devastating pulmonary aspiration, until prospective evidence informs the ideal approach. Until that approach is defined, whether more or less conservative, it is expected that anesthesiologists will adhere to their professional society’s recommendations.

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

Meanwhile, the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Rapid Clinical Practice Update (CPU) makes little distinction in the management of the endoscopy patient on GLP-1RA. A key refrain throughout the CPU is that there is no actionable data to justify the harms that may come to patients from stopping these medications (e.g., withdrawal of benefit to glycemic control and cardiovascular health) and in delaying or canceling procedures, which could lead to further stress on an overburdened workforce and add complexity to periprocedural processes.

Anesthesiologists should rightly consider themselves leaders in patient safety. As such, when a serious safety concern emerges they should be compelled to caution despite the possibility of other harms, until their concerns are mitigated by robust clinical evidence. Thankfully these questions are quite amenable to research, and prospective trials are already reporting compelling data that residual gastric contents, clearly a risk factor for aspiration, are increased in GLP-1RA groups compared to controls. This is evident even while following recommended fasting times and abstinences from these medications, and adjusting for confounders (e.g., age, diabetes, body mass index).^1,2 It logically follows that large studies are likely to find an increased aspiration risk in GLP-1RA populations. Indeed, this increased risk has already been identified in a large retrospective study of endoscopy patients.³ These findings support the ASA’s caution. Additional data indicate that standard fasting guidelines in this patient population may be inadequate.⁴

The ASA guidance does not differentiate between patients undergoing surgery in the operating room and procedures in the endoscopy suite. Part of our task is to provide perspective on whether GLP-1RA management deserves different treatment for endoscopy patients. We can only speculate pending further data. For example, a prolonged fasting period including a full day of clears, with or without a bowel prep, intuitively protects against pulmonary aspiration. However, this is unlikely to mitigate an anesthesiologist’s concern that administration of propofol, frequently to a state of general anesthesia with an unsecured airway and resulting in a patient devoid of airway protection reflexes, is an inherently higher risk scenario for aspiration compared to surgery in the operating room with a secured airway. We also expect prospective trials will confirm retrospective findings that both propofol and procedures including upper endoscopy confer a higher risk for aspiration compared with conscious sedation and colonoscopy.³

We suggest a reasonable approach based on society guidance and existing evidence, pending additional data. Endoscopists and anesthesiologists should continue this important conversation with a specific focus on risks and benefits in order to decrease conflict and achieve consensus. If anesthesia care is desired, the patient instructions should be updated to reflect ASA guidance. Special attention should be paid to the “gray area,” for example those who did not hold the GLP-1 agonist as recommended.

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

This category of patients can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the anesthesiologist, proceduralist, and patient, with a range of options including: proceeding with endoscopist-directed sedation, proceeding with anesthesiology-administered conscious sedation, rescheduling the procedure, and proceeding with general anesthesia with rapid-sequence intubation. In addition to patient factors (e.g., GI symptoms, urgency of procedure), this consideration would vary based on local resources (e.g., presence or absence of anesthesia support staff, emergency airway equipment, nursing staff to comfort recovering patients after general endotracheal anesthesia), and aspiration risk inherent to the procedure (e.g., upper and or combination upper and lower endoscopy vs colonoscopy alone). Proficiency and availability of point-of-care ultrasound are rapidly increasing; adoption of a pre-procedure gastric ultrasound to assess for solids, thick liquids, or large volume of clear liquids may provide a less nuanced, more objective means to address this question.

While the question of periprocedural management of these medications has generated intense interest among anesthesiologists and endoscopists alike, it is worth noting the net positive health effects these drugs are likely to have on our patients, including improved glycemic control, significant weight loss, and decreased cardiovascular risk. We are eager to see whether these benefits translate into an overall improvement in periprocedural outcomes, including in our endoscopy patients.

Dr. Hickey is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. Dr. Pouliot is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

References

1. Sherwin M et al. Influence of semaglutide use on the presence of residual gastric solids on gastric ultrasound: A prospective observational study in volunteers without obesity recently started on semaglutide. Can J Anaesth. 2023 Aug. doi:10.1007/s12630-023-02549-5.

2. Wu F et al. Association of glucagon-like peptide receptor 1 agonist therapy with the presence of gastric contents in fasting patients undergoing endoscopy under anesthesia care: A historical cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2024 Mar 14. doi:10.1007/s12630-024-02719-z.

3. Yeo YH et al. Increased risk of aspiration pneumonia associated with endoscopic procedures among patients with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use. Gastroenterology. 2024 Mar 27. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.015.

4. Sen S et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use and residual gastric content before anesthesia. JAMA Surg. 2024 Mar 6. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0111.

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

BY JANA G. AL HASHASH, MD, MSc, AGAF

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2005. They have become more widely used over the last couple of years for weight loss in individuals who suffer from adiposity-based chronic disease.

The remarkable positive effects that GLP-1 RAs have had on weight loss as well as other medical conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, among many others, have gained these drugs more traction. Even in situations when insurance companies deny coverage of GLP-1 RAs, many patients have been resorting to other routes to obtain these medications, commonly by purchasing them from online compounding pharmacies.

As such, more and more of our patients who present to endoscopy suites across the country are on one of the available GLP-1 RAs. This has necessitated endoscopists and anesthesiologists to become more familiar with the impact of GLP-1 RAs on patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Similar to narcotics, GLP-1 RAs affect gastrointestinal motility and delay gastric emptying. Common side effects of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, and increased satiety. Patients on GLP-1 RAs for weight loss may also have other contributing risk factors for gastroparesis such as diabetes mellitus which may further delay gastric emptying.

For endoscopists, our goals are to achieve the highest quality examination in the safest way possible. As such, being on a GLP-1 RAs could compromise both goals; but to date, the exact impact of these drugs on exam quality and patient safety is yet to be determined.

Mayo Clinic

Studies have shown that patients on GLP-1 RAs have increased gastric residue on upper endoscopy compared with patients not on GLP-1 RAs. The effect of this increased residue on aspiration risk and clinically meaningful patient outcomes is being investigated, and the available published data are conflicting. Additionally, other published cases have shown that GLP-1 RAs are associated with increased solid gastric residue but not liquids, and that symptoms of dyspepsia and abdominal bloating are associated with an increased probability of residual gastric content.

Given the valid concern for increased gastric content residue, anesthesia specialists became more strict about which GLP-1 RA users they would agree to sedate, which ones they would intubate, and which procedures they would cancel. As one would imagine, cancellation and intubation rates have been increasing, and these have affected the schedules of patients, their families, and physicians.

The concern with GLP-1 RAs does not only apply to upper endoscopies, but also impacts colonoscopies. In addition to the concerns of aspiration and pneumonia, studies have shown that the use of GLP-1 RAs may be associated with a lower quality of bowel preparation and higher need for repeat colonoscopy. A study, which I believe is critical, showed that patients on GLP-1 RAs who were scheduled for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were found to have less gastric residue and less risk of complications when compared with patients who were only having an upper endoscopy. This study sets the stage for a modified prep for patients on GLP-1 RAs prior to their procedures, since patients who received a modified/extended liquid diet on the day prior to their procedure (those preparing for a colonoscopy), had a protective effect against retained gastric content.

Clearly, there is a knowledge gap and a need for guidance. In our recently published AGA Rapid CPU, we advised an individualized approach to managing patients on GLP-1 RAs in the pre-endoscopic setting. Factors to consider are the indication for the GLP-1 RAs, the dose being used, duration of use, and indication and urgency of the procedure, as well as the presence of symptoms in the preoperative area (i.e., do patients have any nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, etc.). Also an important factor is the facility in which the endoscopy will be taking place, as certain centers have the capacity to act fast and prevent complications or address them in a timely manner while other centers may not be prepared.

We proposed that a modified liquid diet be considered in patients prior to their endoscopies by advising patients to adhere to a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, as this may help decrease gastric residue and be the safest and best approach for patients on GLP-1 RAs. Of course, it is important to note that more prospective studies are needed to inform clinical practice, and until then, we will have to individualize our approach and continue to put patient safety first.

Dr. Al Hashash is a gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

Dear colleagues,

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are revolutionizing the field of obesity management and are now common medication in patients presenting for endoscopy. With their effect on gastric emptying, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has recommended cessation of such agents prior to endoscopy. However, is this necessary in patients who have been on a clear liquid diet in preparation for a colonoscopy or who are undergoing moderate sedation? Additionally, there are risks to holding GLP-1 RAs, especially for those taking them for glycemic control.

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot discuss the nuances of pre-procedure cessation from an anesthesiologist’s perspective. Dr. Jana Al Hashash provides a gastroenterologist’s view, also highlighting the current paucity of evidence guiding management strategies. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in managing GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopy in your own practice. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Connecticut) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. HICKEY, MD; RYAN C. POULIOT, MD

In response to the recent dramatic increase in GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) prescribing and at the urging of its membership, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued guidance on the preoperative management of these medications. The big takeaways were recommendations that patients on daily dosing should hold their dose on the day of a procedure, and that patients on weekly dosing should hold their dose a week prior.

The ASA guidance recognizes the sparse available evidence base and makes its recommendations in the spirit of patient safety, presuming that a more conservative approach will mitigate risk of rare but potentially devastating pulmonary aspiration, until prospective evidence informs the ideal approach. Until that approach is defined, whether more or less conservative, it is expected that anesthesiologists will adhere to their professional society’s recommendations.

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

Meanwhile, the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Rapid Clinical Practice Update (CPU) makes little distinction in the management of the endoscopy patient on GLP-1RA. A key refrain throughout the CPU is that there is no actionable data to justify the harms that may come to patients from stopping these medications (e.g., withdrawal of benefit to glycemic control and cardiovascular health) and in delaying or canceling procedures, which could lead to further stress on an overburdened workforce and add complexity to periprocedural processes.

Anesthesiologists should rightly consider themselves leaders in patient safety. As such, when a serious safety concern emerges they should be compelled to caution despite the possibility of other harms, until their concerns are mitigated by robust clinical evidence. Thankfully these questions are quite amenable to research, and prospective trials are already reporting compelling data that residual gastric contents, clearly a risk factor for aspiration, are increased in GLP-1RA groups compared to controls. This is evident even while following recommended fasting times and abstinences from these medications, and adjusting for confounders (e.g., age, diabetes, body mass index).^1,2 It logically follows that large studies are likely to find an increased aspiration risk in GLP-1RA populations. Indeed, this increased risk has already been identified in a large retrospective study of endoscopy patients.³ These findings support the ASA’s caution. Additional data indicate that standard fasting guidelines in this patient population may be inadequate.⁴

The ASA guidance does not differentiate between patients undergoing surgery in the operating room and procedures in the endoscopy suite. Part of our task is to provide perspective on whether GLP-1RA management deserves different treatment for endoscopy patients. We can only speculate pending further data. For example, a prolonged fasting period including a full day of clears, with or without a bowel prep, intuitively protects against pulmonary aspiration. However, this is unlikely to mitigate an anesthesiologist’s concern that administration of propofol, frequently to a state of general anesthesia with an unsecured airway and resulting in a patient devoid of airway protection reflexes, is an inherently higher risk scenario for aspiration compared to surgery in the operating room with a secured airway. We also expect prospective trials will confirm retrospective findings that both propofol and procedures including upper endoscopy confer a higher risk for aspiration compared with conscious sedation and colonoscopy.³

We suggest a reasonable approach based on society guidance and existing evidence, pending additional data. Endoscopists and anesthesiologists should continue this important conversation with a specific focus on risks and benefits in order to decrease conflict and achieve consensus. If anesthesia care is desired, the patient instructions should be updated to reflect ASA guidance. Special attention should be paid to the “gray area,” for example those who did not hold the GLP-1 agonist as recommended.

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

This category of patients can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the anesthesiologist, proceduralist, and patient, with a range of options including: proceeding with endoscopist-directed sedation, proceeding with anesthesiology-administered conscious sedation, rescheduling the procedure, and proceeding with general anesthesia with rapid-sequence intubation. In addition to patient factors (e.g., GI symptoms, urgency of procedure), this consideration would vary based on local resources (e.g., presence or absence of anesthesia support staff, emergency airway equipment, nursing staff to comfort recovering patients after general endotracheal anesthesia), and aspiration risk inherent to the procedure (e.g., upper and or combination upper and lower endoscopy vs colonoscopy alone). Proficiency and availability of point-of-care ultrasound are rapidly increasing; adoption of a pre-procedure gastric ultrasound to assess for solids, thick liquids, or large volume of clear liquids may provide a less nuanced, more objective means to address this question.

While the question of periprocedural management of these medications has generated intense interest among anesthesiologists and endoscopists alike, it is worth noting the net positive health effects these drugs are likely to have on our patients, including improved glycemic control, significant weight loss, and decreased cardiovascular risk. We are eager to see whether these benefits translate into an overall improvement in periprocedural outcomes, including in our endoscopy patients.

Dr. Hickey is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. Dr. Pouliot is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

References

1. Sherwin M et al. Influence of semaglutide use on the presence of residual gastric solids on gastric ultrasound: A prospective observational study in volunteers without obesity recently started on semaglutide. Can J Anaesth. 2023 Aug. doi:10.1007/s12630-023-02549-5.

2. Wu F et al. Association of glucagon-like peptide receptor 1 agonist therapy with the presence of gastric contents in fasting patients undergoing endoscopy under anesthesia care: A historical cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2024 Mar 14. doi:10.1007/s12630-024-02719-z.

3. Yeo YH et al. Increased risk of aspiration pneumonia associated with endoscopic procedures among patients with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use. Gastroenterology. 2024 Mar 27. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.015.

4. Sen S et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use and residual gastric content before anesthesia. JAMA Surg. 2024 Mar 6. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0111.

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

BY JANA G. AL HASHASH, MD, MSc, AGAF

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2005. They have become more widely used over the last couple of years for weight loss in individuals who suffer from adiposity-based chronic disease.

The remarkable positive effects that GLP-1 RAs have had on weight loss as well as other medical conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, among many others, have gained these drugs more traction. Even in situations when insurance companies deny coverage of GLP-1 RAs, many patients have been resorting to other routes to obtain these medications, commonly by purchasing them from online compounding pharmacies.

As such, more and more of our patients who present to endoscopy suites across the country are on one of the available GLP-1 RAs. This has necessitated endoscopists and anesthesiologists to become more familiar with the impact of GLP-1 RAs on patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Similar to narcotics, GLP-1 RAs affect gastrointestinal motility and delay gastric emptying. Common side effects of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, and increased satiety. Patients on GLP-1 RAs for weight loss may also have other contributing risk factors for gastroparesis such as diabetes mellitus which may further delay gastric emptying.

For endoscopists, our goals are to achieve the highest quality examination in the safest way possible. As such, being on a GLP-1 RAs could compromise both goals; but to date, the exact impact of these drugs on exam quality and patient safety is yet to be determined.

Mayo Clinic

Studies have shown that patients on GLP-1 RAs have increased gastric residue on upper endoscopy compared with patients not on GLP-1 RAs. The effect of this increased residue on aspiration risk and clinically meaningful patient outcomes is being investigated, and the available published data are conflicting. Additionally, other published cases have shown that GLP-1 RAs are associated with increased solid gastric residue but not liquids, and that symptoms of dyspepsia and abdominal bloating are associated with an increased probability of residual gastric content.

Given the valid concern for increased gastric content residue, anesthesia specialists became more strict about which GLP-1 RA users they would agree to sedate, which ones they would intubate, and which procedures they would cancel. As one would imagine, cancellation and intubation rates have been increasing, and these have affected the schedules of patients, their families, and physicians.

The concern with GLP-1 RAs does not only apply to upper endoscopies, but also impacts colonoscopies. In addition to the concerns of aspiration and pneumonia, studies have shown that the use of GLP-1 RAs may be associated with a lower quality of bowel preparation and higher need for repeat colonoscopy. A study, which I believe is critical, showed that patients on GLP-1 RAs who were scheduled for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were found to have less gastric residue and less risk of complications when compared with patients who were only having an upper endoscopy. This study sets the stage for a modified prep for patients on GLP-1 RAs prior to their procedures, since patients who received a modified/extended liquid diet on the day prior to their procedure (those preparing for a colonoscopy), had a protective effect against retained gastric content.

Clearly, there is a knowledge gap and a need for guidance. In our recently published AGA Rapid CPU, we advised an individualized approach to managing patients on GLP-1 RAs in the pre-endoscopic setting. Factors to consider are the indication for the GLP-1 RAs, the dose being used, duration of use, and indication and urgency of the procedure, as well as the presence of symptoms in the preoperative area (i.e., do patients have any nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, etc.). Also an important factor is the facility in which the endoscopy will be taking place, as certain centers have the capacity to act fast and prevent complications or address them in a timely manner while other centers may not be prepared.

We proposed that a modified liquid diet be considered in patients prior to their endoscopies by advising patients to adhere to a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, as this may help decrease gastric residue and be the safest and best approach for patients on GLP-1 RAs. Of course, it is important to note that more prospective studies are needed to inform clinical practice, and until then, we will have to individualize our approach and continue to put patient safety first.

Dr. Al Hashash is a gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

Dear colleagues,

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are revolutionizing the field of obesity management and are now common medication in patients presenting for endoscopy. With their effect on gastric emptying, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has recommended cessation of such agents prior to endoscopy. However, is this necessary in patients who have been on a clear liquid diet in preparation for a colonoscopy or who are undergoing moderate sedation? Additionally, there are risks to holding GLP-1 RAs, especially for those taking them for glycemic control.

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot discuss the nuances of pre-procedure cessation from an anesthesiologist’s perspective. Dr. Jana Al Hashash provides a gastroenterologist’s view, also highlighting the current paucity of evidence guiding management strategies. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in managing GLP-1 RAs prior to endoscopy in your own practice. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Connecticut) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. HICKEY, MD; RYAN C. POULIOT, MD

In response to the recent dramatic increase in GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) prescribing and at the urging of its membership, the American Society of Anesthesiologists issued guidance on the preoperative management of these medications. The big takeaways were recommendations that patients on daily dosing should hold their dose on the day of a procedure, and that patients on weekly dosing should hold their dose a week prior.

The ASA guidance recognizes the sparse available evidence base and makes its recommendations in the spirit of patient safety, presuming that a more conservative approach will mitigate risk of rare but potentially devastating pulmonary aspiration, until prospective evidence informs the ideal approach. Until that approach is defined, whether more or less conservative, it is expected that anesthesiologists will adhere to their professional society’s recommendations.

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

Meanwhile, the American Gastroenterological Association Institute Rapid Clinical Practice Update (CPU) makes little distinction in the management of the endoscopy patient on GLP-1RA. A key refrain throughout the CPU is that there is no actionable data to justify the harms that may come to patients from stopping these medications (e.g., withdrawal of benefit to glycemic control and cardiovascular health) and in delaying or canceling procedures, which could lead to further stress on an overburdened workforce and add complexity to periprocedural processes.

Anesthesiologists should rightly consider themselves leaders in patient safety. As such, when a serious safety concern emerges they should be compelled to caution despite the possibility of other harms, until their concerns are mitigated by robust clinical evidence. Thankfully these questions are quite amenable to research, and prospective trials are already reporting compelling data that residual gastric contents, clearly a risk factor for aspiration, are increased in GLP-1RA groups compared to controls. This is evident even while following recommended fasting times and abstinences from these medications, and adjusting for confounders (e.g., age, diabetes, body mass index).^1,2 It logically follows that large studies are likely to find an increased aspiration risk in GLP-1RA populations. Indeed, this increased risk has already been identified in a large retrospective study of endoscopy patients.³ These findings support the ASA’s caution. Additional data indicate that standard fasting guidelines in this patient population may be inadequate.⁴

The ASA guidance does not differentiate between patients undergoing surgery in the operating room and procedures in the endoscopy suite. Part of our task is to provide perspective on whether GLP-1RA management deserves different treatment for endoscopy patients. We can only speculate pending further data. For example, a prolonged fasting period including a full day of clears, with or without a bowel prep, intuitively protects against pulmonary aspiration. However, this is unlikely to mitigate an anesthesiologist’s concern that administration of propofol, frequently to a state of general anesthesia with an unsecured airway and resulting in a patient devoid of airway protection reflexes, is an inherently higher risk scenario for aspiration compared to surgery in the operating room with a secured airway. We also expect prospective trials will confirm retrospective findings that both propofol and procedures including upper endoscopy confer a higher risk for aspiration compared with conscious sedation and colonoscopy.³

We suggest a reasonable approach based on society guidance and existing evidence, pending additional data. Endoscopists and anesthesiologists should continue this important conversation with a specific focus on risks and benefits in order to decrease conflict and achieve consensus. If anesthesia care is desired, the patient instructions should be updated to reflect ASA guidance. Special attention should be paid to the “gray area,” for example those who did not hold the GLP-1 agonist as recommended.

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

This category of patients can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the anesthesiologist, proceduralist, and patient, with a range of options including: proceeding with endoscopist-directed sedation, proceeding with anesthesiology-administered conscious sedation, rescheduling the procedure, and proceeding with general anesthesia with rapid-sequence intubation. In addition to patient factors (e.g., GI symptoms, urgency of procedure), this consideration would vary based on local resources (e.g., presence or absence of anesthesia support staff, emergency airway equipment, nursing staff to comfort recovering patients after general endotracheal anesthesia), and aspiration risk inherent to the procedure (e.g., upper and or combination upper and lower endoscopy vs colonoscopy alone). Proficiency and availability of point-of-care ultrasound are rapidly increasing; adoption of a pre-procedure gastric ultrasound to assess for solids, thick liquids, or large volume of clear liquids may provide a less nuanced, more objective means to address this question.

While the question of periprocedural management of these medications has generated intense interest among anesthesiologists and endoscopists alike, it is worth noting the net positive health effects these drugs are likely to have on our patients, including improved glycemic control, significant weight loss, and decreased cardiovascular risk. We are eager to see whether these benefits translate into an overall improvement in periprocedural outcomes, including in our endoscopy patients.

Dr. Hickey is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. Dr. Pouliot is assistant professor of anesthesiology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

References

1. Sherwin M et al. Influence of semaglutide use on the presence of residual gastric solids on gastric ultrasound: A prospective observational study in volunteers without obesity recently started on semaglutide. Can J Anaesth. 2023 Aug. doi:10.1007/s12630-023-02549-5.

2. Wu F et al. Association of glucagon-like peptide receptor 1 agonist therapy with the presence of gastric contents in fasting patients undergoing endoscopy under anesthesia care: A historical cohort study. Can J Anaesth. 2024 Mar 14. doi:10.1007/s12630-024-02719-z.

3. Yeo YH et al. Increased risk of aspiration pneumonia associated with endoscopic procedures among patients with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist use. Gastroenterology. 2024 Mar 27. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2024.03.015.

4. Sen S et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use and residual gastric content before anesthesia. JAMA Surg. 2024 Mar 6. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0111.

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

BY JANA G. AL HASHASH, MD, MSc, AGAF

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2005. They have become more widely used over the last couple of years for weight loss in individuals who suffer from adiposity-based chronic disease.

The remarkable positive effects that GLP-1 RAs have had on weight loss as well as other medical conditions such as heart disease, hypertension, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, among many others, have gained these drugs more traction. Even in situations when insurance companies deny coverage of GLP-1 RAs, many patients have been resorting to other routes to obtain these medications, commonly by purchasing them from online compounding pharmacies.

As such, more and more of our patients who present to endoscopy suites across the country are on one of the available GLP-1 RAs. This has necessitated endoscopists and anesthesiologists to become more familiar with the impact of GLP-1 RAs on patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Similar to narcotics, GLP-1 RAs affect gastrointestinal motility and delay gastric emptying. Common side effects of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs include nausea, vomiting, and increased satiety. Patients on GLP-1 RAs for weight loss may also have other contributing risk factors for gastroparesis such as diabetes mellitus which may further delay gastric emptying.

For endoscopists, our goals are to achieve the highest quality examination in the safest way possible. As such, being on a GLP-1 RAs could compromise both goals; but to date, the exact impact of these drugs on exam quality and patient safety is yet to be determined.

Mayo Clinic

Studies have shown that patients on GLP-1 RAs have increased gastric residue on upper endoscopy compared with patients not on GLP-1 RAs. The effect of this increased residue on aspiration risk and clinically meaningful patient outcomes is being investigated, and the available published data are conflicting. Additionally, other published cases have shown that GLP-1 RAs are associated with increased solid gastric residue but not liquids, and that symptoms of dyspepsia and abdominal bloating are associated with an increased probability of residual gastric content.

Given the valid concern for increased gastric content residue, anesthesia specialists became more strict about which GLP-1 RA users they would agree to sedate, which ones they would intubate, and which procedures they would cancel. As one would imagine, cancellation and intubation rates have been increasing, and these have affected the schedules of patients, their families, and physicians.

The concern with GLP-1 RAs does not only apply to upper endoscopies, but also impacts colonoscopies. In addition to the concerns of aspiration and pneumonia, studies have shown that the use of GLP-1 RAs may be associated with a lower quality of bowel preparation and higher need for repeat colonoscopy. A study, which I believe is critical, showed that patients on GLP-1 RAs who were scheduled for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were found to have less gastric residue and less risk of complications when compared with patients who were only having an upper endoscopy. This study sets the stage for a modified prep for patients on GLP-1 RAs prior to their procedures, since patients who received a modified/extended liquid diet on the day prior to their procedure (those preparing for a colonoscopy), had a protective effect against retained gastric content.

Clearly, there is a knowledge gap and a need for guidance. In our recently published AGA Rapid CPU, we advised an individualized approach to managing patients on GLP-1 RAs in the pre-endoscopic setting. Factors to consider are the indication for the GLP-1 RAs, the dose being used, duration of use, and indication and urgency of the procedure, as well as the presence of symptoms in the preoperative area (i.e., do patients have any nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, etc.). Also an important factor is the facility in which the endoscopy will be taking place, as certain centers have the capacity to act fast and prevent complications or address them in a timely manner while other centers may not be prepared.

We proposed that a modified liquid diet be considered in patients prior to their endoscopies by advising patients to adhere to a clear liquid diet the day before the procedure, as this may help decrease gastric residue and be the safest and best approach for patients on GLP-1 RAs. Of course, it is important to note that more prospective studies are needed to inform clinical practice, and until then, we will have to individualize our approach and continue to put patient safety first.

Dr. Al Hashash is a gastroenterologist and associate professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

An experimental pancreatic gene therapy given to a mouse model of obesity as a one-time, single-dose treatment showed improvements in body composition and fasting glucose comparable with those achieved with the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide, without the reversal of fat-loss and glycemia improvements that are a key concern with the withdrawal of GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• The adeno-associated virus–based GLP-1 pancreatic gene therapy is designed to induce durable islet production of GLP-1 peptides that could, in theory, negate the need for regular injections or dosing of conventional GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs.
• With initial preclinical research showing benefits in Yucatan pigs, the authors tested the pancreatic gene therapy in mice representing a validated model of diet-induced obesity.
• The mice were randomized to receive either a single-dose administration of the pancreatic gene therapy (n = 10), daily subcutaneous semaglutide injections (n = 10; 10 nmol/kg/d for 4 weeks), pancreatic gene therapy placebo (n = 8), or a semaglutide placebo (n = 8).
• The gene therapy is designed to be delivered directly to the pancreas with a needle puncture, using a proprietary endoscopic delivery method that is similar to procedures commonly performed by gastrointestinal endoscopists, limiting systemic exposure.
• At 4 weeks, semaglutide was discontinued, and 5 of the 10 mice in that group were randomized to the gene therapy, while the other 5 received placebo.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 4, the pancreatic gene therapy arm had a reduction in fat mass of 21%, compared with 16% with semaglutide (P < .05; both P < .0001 vs placebo)
• The pancreatic gene therapy and semaglutide groups each preserved lean mass, with a loss of only 5% of body weight (both P < .0001 vs placebo).
• At week 8, mice withdrawn from semaglutide had nearly a full reversal of the fat and lean mass losses observed at 4 weeks, returning to within 1% and 2% below baseline, respectively, while the semaglutide-withdrawn mice treated with gene therapy maintained a fat reduction of 17% (P < .01) and lean mass of 5% (P < .0001).
• Significant improvements in fasting glucose were observed in the gene therapy and semaglutide-treated mice at week 4 (both 18%; P < .0001).
• While semaglutide-withdrawal resulted in a rebound of fasting glucose to baseline at week 8, those who had initially received gene therapy or were switched over to the therapy maintained fasting glucose reductions of 21% and 22% at 8 weeks (P < .0001 and P < .001), respectively.
• No indications of pancreatic inflammation or injury were observed in any of the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The results suggest the therapy could represent “a reliable, ‘off ramp’ from chronic GLP-1 drugs that allows people to maintain the weight loss and blood sugar benefits, even as they stop taking these medicines,” said first author Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, cofounder and chief executive officer of Fractyl Health, which is developing the gene therapy, in a press statement issued by the company.

The therapy is being developed as a candidate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and plans are underway for the first in-human study in type 2 diabetes in 2025, Dr. Rajagopalan noted while presenting the results at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)’s 84th scientific sessions.
 

SOURCE:

The study was presented on June 23, 2024, at the annual meeting of the ADA’s 84th scientific sessions (Abstract #261-OR).

LIMITATIONS:

The pancreatic gene therapy is in early development and has not been assessed by any regulatory body for investigational or commercial use.

Asked by an audience member at the ADA presentation if the therapy would be reversible if complications were to arise, Dr. Rajagopalan responded that “there are ways to tune this effect in order to prevent complications from occurring, which we will discuss in due course.”

Also asked about the potential for a positive feedback loop with GLP-1 signaling and insulin signaling, Dr. Rajagopalan noted that “I don’t believe that we have seen any evidence of that risk so far. One could hypothesize, but we have not seen anything [in that regard] that would be a cause for concern.”
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Fractyl Health, and Dr. Rajagopalan and the authors declared being employees and stockholders/shareholders of the company.

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

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite their best efforts, 80% of people who lose weight regain it and many end up heavier within 5 years. Why? Our bodies fight back, revving up hunger while slowing metabolism after weight loss. In ongoing obesity discussions, ghrelin is in the spotlight as the “hunger hormone” playing a crucial role in driving appetite and facilitating weight gain. 

Weight loss interventions, such as diet or gastric bypass surgery, may trigger an increase in ghrelin levels, potentially fueling long-term weight gain. Consequently, ghrelin remains a focal point of research into innovative antiobesity treatments. 

Ghrelin, a hormone produced in the stomach, is often called the “hunger hormone.” Ghrelin is a circulating orexigenic gut hormone with growth hormone–releasing activity. In the intricate balance of energy, central and peripheral peptides such as ghrelin, leptin, adiponectin, and insulin play crucial roles. They regulate hunger, fullness, and metabolic rates, shaping our body weight outcomes. 

Since the discovery of ghrelin, in 1999, research in mice and people has focused on its effect on regulating appetite and implications for long-term weight control. When hunger strikes, ghrelin levels surge, sending signals to the brain that ramp up the appetite. Following a meal, ghrelin decreases, indicating fullness. 

Studies have found that people who were injected with subcutaneous ghrelin experienced a 46% increase in hunger and ate 28% more at their next meal than those who didn’t receive a ghrelin injection.

We might expect high levels of ghrelin in individuals with obesity, but this is not the case. In fact, ghrelin levels are typically lower in individuals with obesity than in leaner individuals. This finding might seem to contradict the idea that obesity is due to high levels of the hunger hormone. 

Excess weight could increase sensitivity to ghrelin, where more receptors lead to higher hunger stimulation with less ghrelin. Beyond hunger, ghrelin can also lead us to eat for comfort, as when stressed or anxious. Ghrelin and synthetic ghrelin mimetics increase body weight and fat mass by activating receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (Müller et al.; Bany Bakar et al.). There, it also activates the brain’s reward pathways, making us crave food even when we are not hungry. This connection between ghrelin and emotional eating can contribute to stress-induced obesity. 

In my clinical practice, I have seen individuals gain maximum weight when they are under more stress and are sleep-deprived. This is because ghrelin levels increased in these scenarios. This elevation of ghrelin in high-stress, low-sleep situations affects weight gain in women during the postpartum period and menopause. 

Evidence also suggests that certain foods affect ghrelin levels. After a person eats carbohydrates, their ghrelin levels initially decrease quickly, but this is followed by a rise in ghrelin, leading them to become hungry again. In contrast, protein intake helps suppress ghrelin levels for longer. Hence, we advise patients to increase protein intake while reducing their carb intake, or to always eat protein along with carbs.

It makes sense that when individuals with obesity lose weight by fasting or caloric restriction and try to maintain that weight loss, their bodies tend to produce more ghrelin. This effect might explain why people who lose weight often find it hard to keep it off: Rising ghrelin levels after weight loss might drive them to eat more and regain weight. 

Two prominent weight loss surgeries, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), have opposite effects on ghrelin levels, reflecting their distinct mechanisms for weight loss. SG involves removal of the gastric fundus, where ghrelin is produced, resulting in a significant decrease in ghrelin levels; RYGB operates through malabsorption without directly affecting ghrelin production. Despite these differing approaches, both techniques demonstrate remarkable weight loss efficacy. Research comparing the two procedures reveals that SG leads to decreased fasting plasma ghrelin levels, whereas RYGB prompts an increase, highlighting the additional appetite-reducing mechanism of SG through ghrelin suppression. This contrast underscores the intricate role of ghrelin in appetite regulation and suggests that its manipulation can significantly influence weight loss outcomes.

With the effect of ghrelin in stimulating appetite being established, other studies have explored the relationship between ghrelin and insulin resistance. A meta-analysis by researchers at Qingdao University, Qingdao, China, found that circulating ghrelin levels were negatively correlated with insulin resistance in individuals with obesity and normal fasting glucose levels. The findings suggest that the role of ghrelin in obesity might extend beyond appetite regulation to influence metabolic pathways and that ghrelin may be a marker for predicting obesity.

Researchers are exploring potential therapeutic targets focusing on ghrelin modulation. Although selective neutralization of ghrelin has not yielded consistent results in rodent models, the interplay between ghrelin and LEAP2— a hormone that attaches to the same brain receptors — could be an area of interest for future obesity treatments.

Could ghrelin be the key to tackling obesity? Blocking ghrelin pharmacologically might be a strategy to keep weight off after weight loss, and it could help prevent the typical rebound effect seen with diets and withdrawal of medications. Considering the high rates of weight regain after diet-induced weight loss and withdrawal of weight loss medications, targeting ghrelin might be the missing link in long-term obesity treatment. It could be a valuable approach to improving long-term outcomes for obesity. However, these blockers might have significant side effects, given that ghrelin affects not only hunger but also the brain’s reward and pleasure centers. Therefore, caution will be needed in developing such medications owing to their potential impact on mood and mental health.

With ghrelin playing roles in hunger, reward pathways, and energy regulation, understanding this hormone is crucial in the fight against obesity. Stay tuned for future research that could shed light on the underlying mechanisms at play and hopefully results in clinical action steps.

Dimpi Desai, MD, is a professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Gerontology, and Metabolism, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Ashni Dharia, MD, is a resident in the Department of Internal Medicine, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

ORLANDO, FLA. — The diabetes and weight loss drug tirzepatide (Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes; Zepbound for obesity) was so effective at reducing sleep disruptions in patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) that 40%-50% no longer needed to use a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) device, according to two new studies.

Tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, also lowered C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure. And patients taking the medication lost 18%-20% of their body weight. 

The SURMOUNT-OSA studies “mark a significant milestone in the treatment of OSA, offering a promising new therapeutic option that addresses both respiratory and metabolic complications,” said lead author Atul Malhotra, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of sleep medicine at UC San Diego Health. 

The two double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in patients with obesity and moderate to severe OSA were conducted at 60 sites in nine countries. The results were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

OSA affects 1 billion people worldwide and 30 million American adults, many of whom are undiagnosed. Obesity is a common risk factor. According to the ADA, 40% of those with obesity have OSA and 70% of those with OSA have obesity. 

CPAP is an effective and the most-used intervention for OSA, but many patients refuse to use the device, stop using it, or cannot use it. Should tirzepatide eventually gain Food and Drug Administration approval for OSA, it would be the first drug approved for the condition.

“This new drug treatment offers a more accessible alternative for individuals who cannot tolerate or adhere to existing therapies,” said Dr. Malhotra.
 

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

For the two studies, patients were enrolled who had moderate to severe OSA, defined as more than 15 events per hour (using the apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]) and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater. Those not using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 1, and those using a CPAP device were enrolled in study 2. 

Participants received either the maximum tolerated dose of tirzepatide (10 or 15 mg by once-weekly injection) or placebo for 1 year. In study 1, 114 individuals received tirzepatide and 120 received placebo. For study 2, 119 patients received tirzepatide and 114 received placebo. All participants received regular lifestyle counseling sessions about nutrition and were instructed to reduce food intake by 500 kcal/day and to engage in at least 150 min/week of physical activity.

Enrollment was limited to 70% men to ensure adequate representation of women.

At baseline, 65%-70% of participants had severe OSA, with more than 30 events/hour on the AHI scale and a mean of 51.5 events/hour.

By 1 year, patients taking tirzepatide had 27-30 fewer events/hour, compared with 4-6 fewer events/hour for those taking placebo.

Up to half of those who received tirzepatide in both trials had less than 5 events/hour or 5-14 AHI events/hour and an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score of 10 or less. Those thresholds “represent a level at which CPAP therapy may not be recommended,” wrote the authors.

Patients in the tirzepatide group also had a decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline of 9.7 mm Hg in study 1 and 7.6 mm Hg in study 2 at week 48.

The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, which occurred in approximately a quarter of patients taking tirzepatide. There were two adjudicated-confirmed cases of acute pancreatitis in those taking tirzepatide in study 2. 

Patients who received tirzepatide also reported fewer daytime and nighttime disturbances, as measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form scale for Sleep-Related Impairment and Sleep Disturbance.
 

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Sanjay R. Patel, MD, noted that, although clinical guidelines have recommended that weight loss strategies be incorporated as part of OSA treatment, “the integration of obesity management into the approaches to care for obstructive sleep apnea has lagged.”

As many as half of patients abandon CPAP therapy within 3 years, wrote Dr. Patel, who is professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and medical director of the UPMC Comprehensive Sleep Disorders program. “An effective medication to treat obesity is thus an obvious avenue to pursue.”

Dr. Patel noted the large reductions in the number of events on the AHI scale. He wrote that the improvement in systolic blood pressure “was substantially larger than effects seen with CPAP therapy alone and indicate that tirzepatide may be an attractive option for those patients who seek to reduce their cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Patel raised concerns about whether patients outside of a trial would stick with therapy, noting studies have shown high rates of discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists.

And, he wrote, “racial disparities in the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists among patients with diabetes arouse concern that the addition of tirzepatide as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea without directly addressing policies relative to coverage of care will only further exacerbate already pervasive disparities in clinical care for obstructive sleep apnea.”

Commenting on the study during the presentation of the results, Louis Aronne, MD, said he believes the trials demonstrate “the treatment of obesity with tirzepatide plus CPAP is really the optimal treatment for obstructive sleep apnea and obesity-related cardiometabolic risks.” Dr. Aronne is the Sanford I. Weill professor of metabolic research at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

Dr. Aronne added there is still much to learn. It is still not clear whether tirzepatide had an independent effect in the OSA trial — as has been seen in other studies where the drug clearly reduced cardiovascular risk — or whether the positive results were primarily caused by weight loss.

“I believe that over time we’ll see that this particular effect in sleep apnea is related to weight,” he said. 

The study was supported by Eli Lilly. Dr. Malhotra has reported being a paid consultant for Lilly and ZOLL Medical and a cofounder of Healcisio. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Whether they have normal weight, overweight, or obesity, individuals with metabolically healthy (MH) phenotypes show a lower frequency of impaired glucose metabolism than their unhealthy counterparts across all weight categories.

METHODOLOGY:

• The concepts of MH overweight and MH obesity refer to a subset of people who exhibit an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors despite excess body fat, but the prevalence of prediabetes has not been investigated by metabolic phenotype and body mass index (BMI).
• This study first validated the use of estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), an index of insulin sensitivity calculated from clinical variables, in 350 individuals without diabetes (mean age, 37 years; 219 women; mean BMI, 30.3) from the EUGENE2 project who had varying glucose tolerance values originally assessed by insulin-stimulated glucose disposal.
• Researchers then stratified 2201 participants without diabetes (mean age, 46 years; White; 1290 women; mean BMI, 31.2) from the CATAMERI study according to BMI into three groups — individuals with normal weight (BMI, 18-24.9), overweight (BMI, 25-29.9), and obesity (BMI, ≥ 30).
• The men and women in each BMI group were separated into quartiles of insulin sensitivity based on eGDR index:
• In the normal weight group, men and women were defined as MH in the top three eGDR quartiles and metabolically unhealthy (MU) in the lowest quartile.
• In the overweight and obesity groups, people were defined as MH in the top eGDR quartile and MU in the lower three quartiles.
• Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting glucose (IFG), and combined IFG+IGT conditions (from an oral glucose tolerance test) were compared in individuals without diabetes based on MH or unhealthy phenotypes across normal weight, overweight, and obese categories.

TAKEAWAY:

• eGDR demonstrated good accuracy in detecting individuals with higher insulin sensitivity in the EUGENE2 cohort.
• The MH overweight and MH obesity groups showed comparable glycemic parameters as the MH normal weight group, whereas the MU overweight and MU obesity groups exhibited higher A1c levels and fasting and 2-hour post-load glucose than the MH normal weight group.
• The frequencies of IFG, IGT, and IFG+IGT conditions were similar among the MH normal weight, MH overweight, and MH obesity groups but were higher in the MU overweight and MU obesity groups than in the MU normal weight group.
• Furthermore, compared with those in the MH normal weight group, the odds of prediabetes were at least two times higher in the MU obesity (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P < .001) and MU overweight (OR, 2.06; P < .001) groups but not significantly different in the MU normal weight, MH obesity, and MH overweight groups.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Overall, the results of this cross-sectional study support the notion that metabolically healthy individuals with overweight or obesity have a more favorable metabolic risk profile in comparison to metabolically unhealthy subjects with overweight or obesity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Chiara M.A. Cefalo, MD, department of clinical and molecular medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was no consensus on the parameters and cutoff values for defining metabolic health status, allowing for potential variations in results. The study design suggested an association with prevalent IFG and IGT conditions but not with incident IFG and IGT conditions. All participants in this study were White, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Sapienza University of Rome and the Italian Ministry of University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS) offers a survival advantage over glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in adults with obesity and diabetes for 10 years or less, which may be explained by greater weight loss with surgery, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of BMS and GLP-1 RAs in reducing mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• This observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of Clalit Health Services, Israel’s largest healthcare organization.
• Researchers included patients aged 24 years or older who had diabetes and obesity but no prior cardiovascular disease and who either underwent BMS or received a GLP-1 RA.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. The secondary outcome was nonfatal MACE, assessed by multivariate competing risk models.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers included 3035 matched pairs of patients (total, 6070; mean age, 51 years; 65% women), who were followed for a median of 6.8 years.
• Among patients with diabetes for 10 years or less, those who underwent BMS had a 62% lower risk for mortality than those treated with a GLP-1 RA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38).
• The survival advantage associated with BMS vs GLP-1 RA may be explained by the greater relative decrease in body mass index in the surgery group (–31.4% vs –12.8%, respectively).
• Among patients with diabetes for more than 10 years, no survival advantage was observed for BMS over GLP-1 RA (HR, 0.65), which may be explained by the adverse effects of prolonged diabetes duration masking the benefit associated with weight loss.
• The risk for nonfatal MACE did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in both diabetes duration categories.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study suggests that BMS was associated with greater reduced mortality compared with GLP-1 RAs among individuals with a diabetes duration of 10 years or less, mediated via greater weight loss,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Dror Dicker, MD, Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design may have introduced residual confounding despite matching and multivariable adjustment. The analyses did not account for the types of BMS or GLP-1 RAs or the level of adherence to GLP-1 RA treatment. Information regarding cause of death was unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation. Dicker reported financial relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Overall, persons with schizophrenia are more likely than the general population to be overweight and have cardiovascular risk factors before starting treatment with antipsychotics, and such treatment generally worsens these measures. Weight gain and associated morbidity and mortality are common side effects of antipsychotic medications. Olanzapine is associated with significant weight gain of 7% or more, higher than other second-generation antipsychotics. Olanzapine treatment is the major contributor to this patient's additional weight gain over the past 2 years. This added weight has translated to excess wear and tear on her joints, leading to evidence of osteoarthritis. Treatment with olanzapine is also independently associated with detrimental changes in cardiometabolic parameters.

Interventions to prevent or mitigate weight gain with antipsychotics are limited. In general, the American Psychiatric Association does not recommend switching antipsychotics for patients whose schizophrenia is well managed. However, there is increasing evidence that metformin may have a role in mitigating weight gain as well as beneficially modifying cardiometabolic factors in patients with schizophrenia being treated with olanzapine. A systematic review of emerging evidence with metformin in patients with schizophrenia suggests that metformin may also improve some cognitive symptoms of the illness, although further research is needed. The randomized, double-blind MELIA trial of metformin plus lifestyle intervention in antipsychotic-induced weight gain is ongoing. Starting metformin as a preventive measure at the same time as antipsychotic therapy may help to limit excess weight gain. 

Research continues on the potential benefit of adding weight loss medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, to antipsychotics. Daily liraglutide is most widely studied, but a published case series with weekly semaglutide also demonstrated weight loss in this setting. Liraglutide also has shown beneficial cardiometabolic effects in patients using antipsychotic medications. More studies of these drugs and of GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists are needed to elucidate the optimal use of these therapies for patients with schizophrenia.

There are few other effective ways to mitigate weight gain with olanzapine. Patients should be counseled on nutrition and lifestyle modifications. Evidence supports improvement with structured lifestyle modifications across a range of patients with less severe mental health issues, and structured programs combined with motivational interviewing were associated with reductions in antipsychotic-induced weight gain in patients with severe mental illness. As with any patient with obesity, however, the success of lifestyle modifications is heavily dependent on the individual's ability and motivation to comply with recommended interventions. 

Nonpharmacologic interventions to address joint pain include heat or cold compresses, physical therapy, and strength and resistance training to improve the strength of muscles supporting the joints. If these measures are ineffective, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including ibuprofen, naproxen, meloxicam, diclofenac, or celecoxib may be used with regular follow-up to assess cardiovascular and gastrointestinal health. Topical NSAIDs also may be useful. For more intractable joint pain, options include injecting a corticosteroid or sodium hyaluronate into the affected joints or joint replacement. 

Carolyn Newberry, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director of GI Nutrition, Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), Division of Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY.

Disclosure: Carolyn Newberry, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Baster International; InBody.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Overall, persons with schizophrenia are more likely than the general population to be overweight and have cardiovascular risk factors before starting treatment with antipsychotics, and such treatment generally worsens these measures. Weight gain and associated morbidity and mortality are common side effects of antipsychotic medications. Olanzapine is associated with significant weight gain of 7% or more, higher than other second-generation antipsychotics. Olanzapine treatment is the major contributor to this patient's additional weight gain over the past 2 years. This added weight has translated to excess wear and tear on her joints, leading to evidence of osteoarthritis. Treatment with olanzapine is also independently associated with detrimental changes in cardiometabolic parameters.

Interventions to prevent or mitigate weight gain with antipsychotics are limited. In general, the American Psychiatric Association does not recommend switching antipsychotics for patients whose schizophrenia is well managed. However, there is increasing evidence that metformin may have a role in mitigating weight gain as well as beneficially modifying cardiometabolic factors in patients with schizophrenia being treated with olanzapine. A systematic review of emerging evidence with metformin in patients with schizophrenia suggests that metformin may also improve some cognitive symptoms of the illness, although further research is needed. The randomized, double-blind MELIA trial of metformin plus lifestyle intervention in antipsychotic-induced weight gain is ongoing. Starting metformin as a preventive measure at the same time as antipsychotic therapy may help to limit excess weight gain. 

Research continues on the potential benefit of adding weight loss medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, to antipsychotics. Daily liraglutide is most widely studied, but a published case series with weekly semaglutide also demonstrated weight loss in this setting. Liraglutide also has shown beneficial cardiometabolic effects in patients using antipsychotic medications. More studies of these drugs and of GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists are needed to elucidate the optimal use of these therapies for patients with schizophrenia.

There are few other effective ways to mitigate weight gain with olanzapine. Patients should be counseled on nutrition and lifestyle modifications. Evidence supports improvement with structured lifestyle modifications across a range of patients with less severe mental health issues, and structured programs combined with motivational interviewing were associated with reductions in antipsychotic-induced weight gain in patients with severe mental illness. As with any patient with obesity, however, the success of lifestyle modifications is heavily dependent on the individual's ability and motivation to comply with recommended interventions. 

Nonpharmacologic interventions to address joint pain include heat or cold compresses, physical therapy, and strength and resistance training to improve the strength of muscles supporting the joints. If these measures are ineffective, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including ibuprofen, naproxen, meloxicam, diclofenac, or celecoxib may be used with regular follow-up to assess cardiovascular and gastrointestinal health. Topical NSAIDs also may be useful. For more intractable joint pain, options include injecting a corticosteroid or sodium hyaluronate into the affected joints or joint replacement. 

Carolyn Newberry, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director of GI Nutrition, Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), Division of Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY.

Disclosure: Carolyn Newberry, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Baster International; InBody.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Overall, persons with schizophrenia are more likely than the general population to be overweight and have cardiovascular risk factors before starting treatment with antipsychotics, and such treatment generally worsens these measures. Weight gain and associated morbidity and mortality are common side effects of antipsychotic medications. Olanzapine is associated with significant weight gain of 7% or more, higher than other second-generation antipsychotics. Olanzapine treatment is the major contributor to this patient's additional weight gain over the past 2 years. This added weight has translated to excess wear and tear on her joints, leading to evidence of osteoarthritis. Treatment with olanzapine is also independently associated with detrimental changes in cardiometabolic parameters.

Interventions to prevent or mitigate weight gain with antipsychotics are limited. In general, the American Psychiatric Association does not recommend switching antipsychotics for patients whose schizophrenia is well managed. However, there is increasing evidence that metformin may have a role in mitigating weight gain as well as beneficially modifying cardiometabolic factors in patients with schizophrenia being treated with olanzapine. A systematic review of emerging evidence with metformin in patients with schizophrenia suggests that metformin may also improve some cognitive symptoms of the illness, although further research is needed. The randomized, double-blind MELIA trial of metformin plus lifestyle intervention in antipsychotic-induced weight gain is ongoing. Starting metformin as a preventive measure at the same time as antipsychotic therapy may help to limit excess weight gain. 

Research continues on the potential benefit of adding weight loss medications, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, to antipsychotics. Daily liraglutide is most widely studied, but a published case series with weekly semaglutide also demonstrated weight loss in this setting. Liraglutide also has shown beneficial cardiometabolic effects in patients using antipsychotic medications. More studies of these drugs and of GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonists are needed to elucidate the optimal use of these therapies for patients with schizophrenia.

There are few other effective ways to mitigate weight gain with olanzapine. Patients should be counseled on nutrition and lifestyle modifications. Evidence supports improvement with structured lifestyle modifications across a range of patients with less severe mental health issues, and structured programs combined with motivational interviewing were associated with reductions in antipsychotic-induced weight gain in patients with severe mental illness. As with any patient with obesity, however, the success of lifestyle modifications is heavily dependent on the individual's ability and motivation to comply with recommended interventions. 

Nonpharmacologic interventions to address joint pain include heat or cold compresses, physical therapy, and strength and resistance training to improve the strength of muscles supporting the joints. If these measures are ineffective, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including ibuprofen, naproxen, meloxicam, diclofenac, or celecoxib may be used with regular follow-up to assess cardiovascular and gastrointestinal health. Topical NSAIDs also may be useful. For more intractable joint pain, options include injecting a corticosteroid or sodium hyaluronate into the affected joints or joint replacement. 

Carolyn Newberry, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director of GI Nutrition, Innovative Center for Health and Nutrition in Gastroenterology (ICHANGE), Division of Gastroenterology, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY.

Disclosure: Carolyn Newberry, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Baster International; InBody.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is recommending that clinicians provide comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions for children 6 years and older who have a high body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile (for age and sex) or refer those patients to an appropriate provider.

One in five children (19.7%) and adolescents ages 2-19 in the United States are at or above this range, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts from 2000, the task force wrote in its statement. The rate of BMI increase nearly doubled in this age group during the COVID pandemic, compared with prepandemic levels.

Publishing their recommendations in JAMA, the task force, with lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, with the Milken Institute of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., also noted that the prevalence of high BMI increases with age and rates are higher among children from lower-income families. Rates are also higher in Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic Black children.
 

At Least 26 Hours of Interventions

It is important that children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI receive intensive interventions for at least 26 contact hours for up to a year, as evidence showed that was the threshold for weight loss, the task force said.

Based on its evidence review, the USPSTF assigned this recommendation a B grade indicating “moderate certainty ... of moderate net benefit.” The task force analyzed 50 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 8,798) that examined behavioral interventions. They also analyzed eight trials that assessed pharmacotherapy interventions: liraglutide (three RCTs), semaglutide (one RCT), orlistat (two RCTs) and phentermine/topiramate (two RCTs). Five trials included behavioral counseling with the medication or placebo.

These new recommendations also reaffirm the task force’s 2010 and 2023 recommendations.

Effective interventions had multiple components. They included interventions targeting both the parent and child (separately, together or both); group sessions; information about healthy eating, information on reading food labels, and safe exercising; and interventions for encouraging behavioral changes, such as monitoring food intake and problem solving, changing physical activity behaviors, and goal setting.

These types of interventions are often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians, psychologists, social workers, or other behavioral specialists.
 

Personalizing Treatment for Optimal Benefit

“The time to prevent and intervene on childhood obesity is now, and the need to start with ILT [intensive lifestyle therapy] is clear,” Roohi Y. Kharofa, MD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in a related editorial.

However, the editorialists noted it will be important to personalize the level of interventions as ILT won’t be enough for some to prevent serious outcomes. For such patients, bariatric surgery or pharmacotherapy may need to be considered as well.
 

Ways to Reach the 26 Hours

Dr. Kharofa and coauthors pointed out that, while the threshold of at least 26 contact hours is associated with significant improvement in BMI (mean BMI difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.2 to –0.4), and while it’s important to now have an evidence-based threshold, the number may be disheartening given limits on clinicians, staff, and resources. The key may be prescribing physical activity sessions outside the health system.

For patients not interested in group sports or burdened by participation fees, collaboration with local community organizations, such as the YMCA or the Boys & Girls Club, could be arranged, the authors suggested.

“The inability to attain 26 hours should not deter patients or practitioners from participating in, referring to, or implementing obesity interventions. Rather, clinical teams and families should work together to maximize intervention dose using clinical and community programs synergistically,” they wrote.

They noted that the USPSTF in this 2024 update found “inadequate evidence on the benefits of pharmacotherapy in youth with obesity, encouraging clinicians to use ILT as the primary intervention.”
 

What About Medications?

New since the previous USPSTF review, several new medications have been approved for weight loss in pediatric populations, Elizabeth A. O’Connor, PhD, with The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues noted in their updated evidence report.

They noted that the 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics states that clinicians “may offer children ages 8 through 11 years of age with obesity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks, and benefits, as an adjunct to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”

However, Dr. O’Connor and coauthors wrote, the evidence base for each agent is limited and there is no information in the literature supporting their findings on harms of medication use beyond 17 months.

“For pharmacotherapy, when evidence was available on weight maintenance after discontinuation, weight rebounded quickly after medication use ended,” the authors wrote. “This suggests that long-term use is required for weight maintenance and underscores the need for evidence about potential harms from long-term use.”
 

Changes in Investment, Food, Government Priorities Are Needed

In a separate accompanying editorial, Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH, with Stanford University’s Center for Healthy Weight and General Pediatrics Department in Palo Alto, California, and Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, with the Duke Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, wrote that experience to date has shown that current approaches aren’t working and, in fact, pediatric obesity rates are worsening.

“After nearly 15 years of authoritative, evidence-backed USPSTF recommendations for effective interventions for children with high BMI, it is long past time to implement them,” they wrote.

But changes will need to go far beyond clinicians’ offices and priorities must change at local, state, and federal levels, Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote. A shift in priorities is needed to make screening and behavioral interventions available to all children and teens with obesity.

Public policies, they wrote, must address larger issues, such as food content and availability of healthy foods, transportation innovations, and ways to make active lifestyles available equitably.

The authors said that strategies may include taxing sugary drinks, regulating marketing of unhealthful foods, crafting legislation to regulate the nutritional content of school meals, and creating policies to reduce poverty and address social drivers of health.

“A synergistic combination of effective clinical care, as recommended by the USPSTF, and public policy interventions is critically needed to turn the tide on childhood obesity,” Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote.

The full recommendation statement is available at the USPSTF website or the JAMA website.

One coauthor of the recommendation statement reported receiving publications and federal grand funding to his institution for the relationship between obesity and the potential effect of nutrition policy interventions on cardiovascular disease and cancer and for a meta-analysis of the effect of dietary counseling for weight loss. The authors of the evidence report had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Kharofa reported receiving grants from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Robinson has served on the scientific advisory board of WW International (through December 2022). Dr. Armstrong has served as chair of the Section on Obesity, American Academy of Pediatrics; and is a coauthor of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is recommending that clinicians provide comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions for children 6 years and older who have a high body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile (for age and sex) or refer those patients to an appropriate provider.

One in five children (19.7%) and adolescents ages 2-19 in the United States are at or above this range, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts from 2000, the task force wrote in its statement. The rate of BMI increase nearly doubled in this age group during the COVID pandemic, compared with prepandemic levels.

Publishing their recommendations in JAMA, the task force, with lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, with the Milken Institute of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., also noted that the prevalence of high BMI increases with age and rates are higher among children from lower-income families. Rates are also higher in Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic Black children.
 

At Least 26 Hours of Interventions

It is important that children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI receive intensive interventions for at least 26 contact hours for up to a year, as evidence showed that was the threshold for weight loss, the task force said.

Based on its evidence review, the USPSTF assigned this recommendation a B grade indicating “moderate certainty ... of moderate net benefit.” The task force analyzed 50 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 8,798) that examined behavioral interventions. They also analyzed eight trials that assessed pharmacotherapy interventions: liraglutide (three RCTs), semaglutide (one RCT), orlistat (two RCTs) and phentermine/topiramate (two RCTs). Five trials included behavioral counseling with the medication or placebo.

These new recommendations also reaffirm the task force’s 2010 and 2023 recommendations.

Effective interventions had multiple components. They included interventions targeting both the parent and child (separately, together or both); group sessions; information about healthy eating, information on reading food labels, and safe exercising; and interventions for encouraging behavioral changes, such as monitoring food intake and problem solving, changing physical activity behaviors, and goal setting.

These types of interventions are often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians, psychologists, social workers, or other behavioral specialists.
 

Personalizing Treatment for Optimal Benefit

“The time to prevent and intervene on childhood obesity is now, and the need to start with ILT [intensive lifestyle therapy] is clear,” Roohi Y. Kharofa, MD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in a related editorial.

However, the editorialists noted it will be important to personalize the level of interventions as ILT won’t be enough for some to prevent serious outcomes. For such patients, bariatric surgery or pharmacotherapy may need to be considered as well.
 

Ways to Reach the 26 Hours

Dr. Kharofa and coauthors pointed out that, while the threshold of at least 26 contact hours is associated with significant improvement in BMI (mean BMI difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.2 to –0.4), and while it’s important to now have an evidence-based threshold, the number may be disheartening given limits on clinicians, staff, and resources. The key may be prescribing physical activity sessions outside the health system.

For patients not interested in group sports or burdened by participation fees, collaboration with local community organizations, such as the YMCA or the Boys & Girls Club, could be arranged, the authors suggested.

“The inability to attain 26 hours should not deter patients or practitioners from participating in, referring to, or implementing obesity interventions. Rather, clinical teams and families should work together to maximize intervention dose using clinical and community programs synergistically,” they wrote.

They noted that the USPSTF in this 2024 update found “inadequate evidence on the benefits of pharmacotherapy in youth with obesity, encouraging clinicians to use ILT as the primary intervention.”
 

What About Medications?

New since the previous USPSTF review, several new medications have been approved for weight loss in pediatric populations, Elizabeth A. O’Connor, PhD, with The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues noted in their updated evidence report.

They noted that the 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics states that clinicians “may offer children ages 8 through 11 years of age with obesity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks, and benefits, as an adjunct to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”

However, Dr. O’Connor and coauthors wrote, the evidence base for each agent is limited and there is no information in the literature supporting their findings on harms of medication use beyond 17 months.

“For pharmacotherapy, when evidence was available on weight maintenance after discontinuation, weight rebounded quickly after medication use ended,” the authors wrote. “This suggests that long-term use is required for weight maintenance and underscores the need for evidence about potential harms from long-term use.”
 

Changes in Investment, Food, Government Priorities Are Needed

In a separate accompanying editorial, Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH, with Stanford University’s Center for Healthy Weight and General Pediatrics Department in Palo Alto, California, and Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, with the Duke Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, wrote that experience to date has shown that current approaches aren’t working and, in fact, pediatric obesity rates are worsening.

“After nearly 15 years of authoritative, evidence-backed USPSTF recommendations for effective interventions for children with high BMI, it is long past time to implement them,” they wrote.

But changes will need to go far beyond clinicians’ offices and priorities must change at local, state, and federal levels, Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote. A shift in priorities is needed to make screening and behavioral interventions available to all children and teens with obesity.

Public policies, they wrote, must address larger issues, such as food content and availability of healthy foods, transportation innovations, and ways to make active lifestyles available equitably.

The authors said that strategies may include taxing sugary drinks, regulating marketing of unhealthful foods, crafting legislation to regulate the nutritional content of school meals, and creating policies to reduce poverty and address social drivers of health.

“A synergistic combination of effective clinical care, as recommended by the USPSTF, and public policy interventions is critically needed to turn the tide on childhood obesity,” Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote.

The full recommendation statement is available at the USPSTF website or the JAMA website.

One coauthor of the recommendation statement reported receiving publications and federal grand funding to his institution for the relationship between obesity and the potential effect of nutrition policy interventions on cardiovascular disease and cancer and for a meta-analysis of the effect of dietary counseling for weight loss. The authors of the evidence report had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Kharofa reported receiving grants from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Robinson has served on the scientific advisory board of WW International (through December 2022). Dr. Armstrong has served as chair of the Section on Obesity, American Academy of Pediatrics; and is a coauthor of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is recommending that clinicians provide comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions for children 6 years and older who have a high body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile (for age and sex) or refer those patients to an appropriate provider.

One in five children (19.7%) and adolescents ages 2-19 in the United States are at or above this range, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts from 2000, the task force wrote in its statement. The rate of BMI increase nearly doubled in this age group during the COVID pandemic, compared with prepandemic levels.

Publishing their recommendations in JAMA, the task force, with lead author Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, with the Milken Institute of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., also noted that the prevalence of high BMI increases with age and rates are higher among children from lower-income families. Rates are also higher in Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic Black children.
 

At Least 26 Hours of Interventions

It is important that children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI receive intensive interventions for at least 26 contact hours for up to a year, as evidence showed that was the threshold for weight loss, the task force said.

Based on its evidence review, the USPSTF assigned this recommendation a B grade indicating “moderate certainty ... of moderate net benefit.” The task force analyzed 50 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 8,798) that examined behavioral interventions. They also analyzed eight trials that assessed pharmacotherapy interventions: liraglutide (three RCTs), semaglutide (one RCT), orlistat (two RCTs) and phentermine/topiramate (two RCTs). Five trials included behavioral counseling with the medication or placebo.

These new recommendations also reaffirm the task force’s 2010 and 2023 recommendations.

Effective interventions had multiple components. They included interventions targeting both the parent and child (separately, together or both); group sessions; information about healthy eating, information on reading food labels, and safe exercising; and interventions for encouraging behavioral changes, such as monitoring food intake and problem solving, changing physical activity behaviors, and goal setting.

These types of interventions are often delivered by multidisciplinary teams, including pediatricians, exercise physiologists or physical therapists, dietitians, psychologists, social workers, or other behavioral specialists.
 

Personalizing Treatment for Optimal Benefit

“The time to prevent and intervene on childhood obesity is now, and the need to start with ILT [intensive lifestyle therapy] is clear,” Roohi Y. Kharofa, MD, with the department of pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in a related editorial.

However, the editorialists noted it will be important to personalize the level of interventions as ILT won’t be enough for some to prevent serious outcomes. For such patients, bariatric surgery or pharmacotherapy may need to be considered as well.
 

Ways to Reach the 26 Hours

Dr. Kharofa and coauthors pointed out that, while the threshold of at least 26 contact hours is associated with significant improvement in BMI (mean BMI difference, –0.8; 95% CI, –1.2 to –0.4), and while it’s important to now have an evidence-based threshold, the number may be disheartening given limits on clinicians, staff, and resources. The key may be prescribing physical activity sessions outside the health system.

For patients not interested in group sports or burdened by participation fees, collaboration with local community organizations, such as the YMCA or the Boys & Girls Club, could be arranged, the authors suggested.

“The inability to attain 26 hours should not deter patients or practitioners from participating in, referring to, or implementing obesity interventions. Rather, clinical teams and families should work together to maximize intervention dose using clinical and community programs synergistically,” they wrote.

They noted that the USPSTF in this 2024 update found “inadequate evidence on the benefits of pharmacotherapy in youth with obesity, encouraging clinicians to use ILT as the primary intervention.”
 

What About Medications?

New since the previous USPSTF review, several new medications have been approved for weight loss in pediatric populations, Elizabeth A. O’Connor, PhD, with The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon, and colleagues noted in their updated evidence report.

They noted that the 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics states that clinicians “may offer children ages 8 through 11 years of age with obesity weight loss pharmacotherapy, according to medication indications, risks, and benefits, as an adjunct to health behavior and lifestyle treatment.”

However, Dr. O’Connor and coauthors wrote, the evidence base for each agent is limited and there is no information in the literature supporting their findings on harms of medication use beyond 17 months.

“For pharmacotherapy, when evidence was available on weight maintenance after discontinuation, weight rebounded quickly after medication use ended,” the authors wrote. “This suggests that long-term use is required for weight maintenance and underscores the need for evidence about potential harms from long-term use.”
 

Changes in Investment, Food, Government Priorities Are Needed

In a separate accompanying editorial, Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH, with Stanford University’s Center for Healthy Weight and General Pediatrics Department in Palo Alto, California, and Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, with the Duke Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, wrote that experience to date has shown that current approaches aren’t working and, in fact, pediatric obesity rates are worsening.

“After nearly 15 years of authoritative, evidence-backed USPSTF recommendations for effective interventions for children with high BMI, it is long past time to implement them,” they wrote.

But changes will need to go far beyond clinicians’ offices and priorities must change at local, state, and federal levels, Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote. A shift in priorities is needed to make screening and behavioral interventions available to all children and teens with obesity.

Public policies, they wrote, must address larger issues, such as food content and availability of healthy foods, transportation innovations, and ways to make active lifestyles available equitably.

The authors said that strategies may include taxing sugary drinks, regulating marketing of unhealthful foods, crafting legislation to regulate the nutritional content of school meals, and creating policies to reduce poverty and address social drivers of health.

“A synergistic combination of effective clinical care, as recommended by the USPSTF, and public policy interventions is critically needed to turn the tide on childhood obesity,” Dr. Robinson and Dr. Armstrong wrote.

The full recommendation statement is available at the USPSTF website or the JAMA website.

One coauthor of the recommendation statement reported receiving publications and federal grand funding to his institution for the relationship between obesity and the potential effect of nutrition policy interventions on cardiovascular disease and cancer and for a meta-analysis of the effect of dietary counseling for weight loss. The authors of the evidence report had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Kharofa reported receiving grants from Rhythm Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Robinson has served on the scientific advisory board of WW International (through December 2022). Dr. Armstrong has served as chair of the Section on Obesity, American Academy of Pediatrics; and is a coauthor of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Obesity.