User login
GLP-1s Reduced Secondary Stroke Risk in Patients With Diabetes, Obesity
, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.
Extending Longevity
Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”
Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.
Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).
“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”
Addressing Underutilization
Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.
“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”
Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”
Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”
To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.
Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”
Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.
, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.
Extending Longevity
Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”
Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.
Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).
“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”
Addressing Underutilization
Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.
“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”
Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”
Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”
To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.
Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”
Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.
, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.
Extending Longevity
Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.
“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”
Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.
Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).
“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”
Addressing Underutilization
Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.
“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”
Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”
Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”
To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.
Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”
Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
Sugar Substitute Tied to Higher Risk for Heart Attack, Stroke
High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.
The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.
To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.
Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.
“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.
“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”
A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.
In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.
The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.
To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.
Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.
“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.
“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”
A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.
In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
High levels of xylitol, a low-calorie sweetener used in many reduced-sugar foods as well as gum and toothpaste, are linked to an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death, says a new study published in the European Heart Journal.
The research team studied more than 3000 people in the US and Europe over 3 years and found that people with the highest amount of xylitol in their plasma were more likely to have a problem with their heart or blood vessels.
To show the early effects of xylitol, researchers studied platelet activity in volunteers who consumed a xylitol-sweetened drink and a glucose-sweetened drink. The xylitol levels went up by 1000 times in people after the xylitol drink but not after the glucose-sweetened drink.
Xylitol is naturally found in small amounts in fruit and vegetables, and it’s been used more as a sugar substitute over the past decade in processed foods, toothpaste, chewing gum, and other products.
“This study again shows the immediate need for investigating sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners, especially as they continue to be recommended in combating conditions like obesity or diabetes,” Stanley Hazen, MD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland, Ohio, said in a news release.
“It does not mean throw out your toothpaste if it has xylitol in it, but we should be aware that consumption of a product containing high levels could increase the risk of blood clot-related events.”
A similar link between erythritol, another sugar substance, and problems with the heart and blood vessels was found last year by the same research team, the release said.
In a response to the study, the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry, said xylitol has been approved for decades by government agencies. The study results may not apply to the general population because some people in the study already had a higher risk of having problems with their heart and blood vessels, it said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Is Cushing Syndrome More Common in the US Than We Think?
BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest.
In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.
“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization.
There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.
Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?
Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”
She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.”
She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.”
However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?
Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%.
The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded.
A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said.
However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said.
Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders.
On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted.
Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded.
Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest.
In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.
“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization.
There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.
Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?
Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”
She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.”
She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.”
However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?
Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%.
The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded.
A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said.
However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said.
Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders.
On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted.
Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded.
Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — The prevalence of Cushing syndrome (CS) in the United States may be considerably higher than currently appreciated, new data from a single US institution suggest.
In contrast to estimates of 1 to 3 cases per million patient-years from population-based European studies, researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, estimated that the incidence of CS in Wisconsin is a minimum of 7.2 cases per million patient-years. What’s more, contrary to all previous studies, they found that adrenal Cushing syndrome was more common than pituitary adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)–secreting tumors (Cushing disease), and that fewer than half of individuals with adrenal Cushing syndrome had classic physical features of hypercortisolism, such as weight gain, round face, excessive hair growth, and stretch marks.
“Cases are absolutely being missed. ... Clinicians should realize that cortisol excess is not rare. It may not be common, but it needs to be considered in patients with any constellation of features that are seen in cortisol excess,” study investigator Ty B. Carroll, MD, associate professor of medicine, endocrinology and molecular medicine, and the endocrine fellowship program director at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, told this news organization.
There are several contributing factors, he noted, “including the obesity and diabetes epidemics which make some clinical features of cortisol excess more common and less notable. Providers get used to seeing patients with some features of cortisol excess and don’t think to screen. The consequence of this is more difficult-to-control diabetes and hypertension, more advance metabolic bone disease, and likely more advanced cardiovascular disease, all resulting from extended exposure to cortisol excess,” he said.
Are Milder Cases the Ones Being Missed?
Asked to comment, session moderator Sharon L. Wardlaw, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, said, “When we talk about Cushing [syndrome], we usually think of pituitary ACTH as more [common], followed by adrenal adenomas, and then ectopic. But they’re seeing more adrenal adenoma ... we are probably diagnosing this a little more now.”
She also suggested that the Wisconsin group may have a lower threshold for diagnosing the milder cortisol elevation seen with adrenal Cushing syndrome. “If you screen for Cushing with a dexamethasone suppression test … [i]f you have autonomous secretion by the adrenal, you don’t suppress as much. ... When you measure 24-hour urinary cortisol, it may be normal. So you’re in this in-between [state]. ... Maybe in Wisconsin they’re diagnosing it more. Or, maybe it’s just being underdiagnosed in other places.”
She also pointed out that “you can’t diagnose it unless you think of it. I’m not so sure that with these mild cases it’s so much that it’s more common, but maybe it’s like thyroid nodules, where we didn’t know about it until everybody started getting all of these CT scans. We’re now seeing all these incidental thyroid nodules ... I don’t think we’re missing florid Cushing.”
However, Dr. Wardlaw said, it’s probably worthwhile to detect even milder hypercortisolism because it could still have long-term damaging effects, including osteoporosis, muscle weakness, glucose intolerance, and frailty. “You could do something about it and normalize it if you found it. I think that would be the reason to do it.”
Is Wisconsin Representative of Cushing Everywhere?
Dr. Carroll presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. He began by noting that most of the previous CS incidence studies, with estimates of 1.2-3.2 cases per million per year, come from European data published from 1994 to 2019 and collected as far back as 1955. The method of acquisition of patients and the definitions of confirmed cases varied widely in those studies, which reported CS etiologies of ACTH-secreting neoplasms (pituitary or ectopic) in 75%-85% and adrenal-dependent cortisol excess in 15%-20%.
The current study included data from clinic records between May 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, of Wisconsin residents newly diagnosed with and treated for CS. The CS diagnosis was established with standard guideline-supported biochemical testing and appropriate imaging. Patients with exogenous and non-neoplastic hypercortisolism and those who did not receive therapy for CS were excluded.
A total of 185 patients (73% female, 27% male) were identified from 27 of the total 72 counties in Wisconsin, representing a population of 4.5 million. On the basis of the total 5.9 million population of Wisconsin, the incidence of CS in the state works out to 7.2 cases per million population per year, Dr. Carroll said.
However, data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association show that the University of Wisconsin’s Milwaukee facility treated just about half of patients in the state who are discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of CS during 2019-2023. “So ... that means that an actual or approximate incidence of 14-15 cases per million per year rather than the 7.2 cases that we produce,” he said.
Etiologies were 60% adrenal (111 patients), 36.8% pituitary (68 patients), and 3.2% ectopic (6 patients). Those proportions were similar between genders.
On biochemical testing, values for late-night salivary cortisol, dexamethasone suppression, and urinary free cortisol were highest for the ectopic group (3.189 µg/dL, 42.5 µg/dL, and 1514.2 µg/24 h, respectively) and lowest for the adrenal group (0.236 µg/dL, 6.5 µg/dL, and 64.2 µg/24 h, respectively). All differences between groups were highly statistically significant, at P < .0001, Dr. Carroll noted.
Classic physical features of CS were present in 91% of people with pituitary CS and 100% of those ectopic CS but just 44% of individuals with adrenal CS. “We found that adrenal-dependent disease was the most common form of Cushing syndrome. It frequently presented without classic physical features that may be due to the milder biochemical presentation,” he concluded.
Dr. Carroll reported consulting and investigator fees from Corcept Therapeutics. Dr. Wardlaw has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
About 20% of Breast Cancer Survivors Gain Excess Weight
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON — Nearly one in five breast cancer survivors will gain more than 10% of their body weight in the 6 years following their diagnosis, according to new research presented at ENDO 2024, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Younger age and lower weight at diagnosis were the strongest predictors of this excessive weight gain over time.
“Weight gain is a common concern after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment,” said Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, who led the research. “This weight gain in breast cancer survivor increases breast cancer recurrence and mortality, increases cardiovascular disease and mortality, and also increases all-cause mortality.”
Previous studies have found an association between breast cancer survivorship and weight gain, but the reported incidences of weight gain — and the amounts gained — have been highly variable, she added.
In the study, researchers used the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry to identify 4575 breast cancer survivors and tracked their weight over the course of 6 years following cancer diagnosis. These patients were age-matched to women in the general population selected from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which contains the medical records of residents of 27 counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All controls had no history of cancer or bariatric surgery.
Nearly all patients and controls were White (97%); at breast cancer diagnosis, patients were on average 58 years of age and weighed 76 kg (165.5 lb). Controls had similar ages and baseline weights.
At 6 years following breast cancer diagnosis, average weight gain was modest: Breast cancer survivors gained 1.6% of their body weight, compared with 0.7% in controls (P = .004).
However, 18% of breast cancer survivors had gained at least 10% of their body weight over that time. By comparison, 8% of controls experienced this excessive weight gain during that same time frame (P < .0001). The same trend was observed for 15% and 20% weight gain.
After adjustment for confounding factors, younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and lower baseline weight were the strongest predictors of more than 10% weight gain. BRCA2 mutation and use of systemic chemotherapy treatment were also associated with excessive weight gain.
Several factors could be driving weight gain in these patients, said Zeynep Madak-Erdogan, PhD, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, who was not involved with the research. Her work focuses on how diet and nutrition affect hormone action in postmenopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Certain therapies can induce temporary or permanent menopause in patients, “and this early menopause might shift balance of estrogens and cause increased weight gain,” she said. Along the same lines, endocrine therapies can also affect estrogen production.
Stress and exhaustion from treatment — especially compounded by the two previous factors — are also likely culprits in weight gain, she continued.
“These findings highlight importance of lifestyle interventions,” added Dr. Madak-Erdogan. “In addition to changes in the diet (increased vegetable, fruit, [and] whole grain intake; reduction in saturated fats, alcohol, [and] sweetened beverage consumption), survivors should be consulted on importance of regular exercise.”
“These data clearly show we must consider weight changes in breast cancer survivors, and we must find ways of instituting strategies to mitigate these weight gains,” Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. “These women have a lot to think of when they have a breast cancer diagnosis, so we also must find ways of instituting these measures in a way that doesn’t increase the burden of their health.”
Dr. Hurtado Andrade has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health and by Phenomix Sciences. She also is a consultant for Novo Nordisk. These three organizations were not involved with this study. Dr. Madak-Erdogan had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2024
New Oral Weight Loss Drugs: Where Are We and What’s Next?
, in line with patient preference.
One particularly intriguing entry is ARD-101, in development by Aardvark Therapeutics in San Diego, California. Aardvark came out of stealth on May 9 with the announcement of $85 million in new financing. The biopharma will use the money to complete trials of ARD-101 to treat hyperphagia in Prader-Willi syndrome, both to help patients quell the unrelenting hunger that characterizes the orphan disease and as a proof of principle to demonstrate the compound’s complementary mechanism of action to the current glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) therapies for obesity.
Oral ARD-101 is a bitter taste receptor (TAS2R) that mediates hunger, whereas the GLP-1 drugs mainly influence appetite, said the company’s CEO, Tien Lee, MD.
“If you love chocolate cake, for instance, appetite is driving you to eat that. And if that chocolate cake were to turn magically into dog food, your appetite probably would go to zero. But if that dog food were your only food source, over enough time, hunger would eventually compel you to eat it. That’s how they’re differentially driven.”
He added, “Hunger and appetite approaches are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re complementary to each other, and they’re additive in terms of treatment effect.”
Now that the company is out of stealth, expect more published data and updates on ongoing studies, he added.
Here’s a look at other promising oral drugs on the horizon.
Oral Semaglutide
The once-daily 50 mg tablet formulation of this GLP-1 receptor agonist is among the nearest to approval. The formulation was studied for weight loss in individuals with overweight/obesity in the OASIS 1 phase 3a trial. When applying the treatment policy estimand (defined as the treatment effect regardless of adherence), people who took the pill achieved a weight loss of 15.1% over 68 weeks compared with a 2.4% reduction with placebo, and 84.9% achieved a weight loss of ≥ 5% vs 25.8% with placebo, according to the manufacturer Novo Nordisk.
A spokesperson for the company told this news organization that, contrary to earlier reports, the 50 mg pill will be submitted for regulatory approval after results from OASIS 4 are in, “so we have the full data set.” OASIS 4 is investigating the 25 mg oral dose, and results are expected this year.
“The US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity,” the spokesperson said. The company can produce semaglutide as a tablet or injectable, but the oral form requires more an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Therefore, production capacities are being expanded globally for both formulations.
Oral Amycretin
Novo Nordisk’s spokesperson said that, as announced in March, results from an exploratory endpoint on body weight change in a phase 1 trial showed an average −13.1% reduction after 12 weeks of treatment with once-daily oral amycretin compared with −1.1% for placebo. The favorable safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile observed in the trial allows for further development of amycretin.
“Moreover,” the spokesperson said, “we are developing the oral small molecule CB1 receptor inverse agonist monlunabant (INV-202), which has shown weight loss potential in phase 1 with a favorable safety and tolerability profile and is currently being investigated in phase 2 in diabetic kidney disease and obesity.”
APH-012
As of April 25, Aphaia Pharma completed enrollment of the first two cohorts in its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept phase 2 trial evaluating a once-daily 12-g dose of its proprietary oral glucose formulation APHD-12 for obesity.
The company also announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expansion of the trial›s protocol to investigate the contribution of circadian effects in weight loss treatment. The new protocol will include additional cohorts, which will be dosed with either 6 g (APHD-006) or 8 g (APHD-008) of Aphaia’s formulation or placebos twice daily. The primary endpoint of the trial is the change from baseline in percent weight compared with placebo. The study will also evaluate exploratory secondary endpoints, which are considered hallmarks of multiple metabolic diseases closely associated with obesity.
The drug candidate is “designed to be released at discrete parts of the small intestine to restore endogenous nutrient-sensing signaling pathways and stimulate the release of the broad spectrum of enteric hormones that control multiple homeostatic functions like appetite, hunger, satiety, glucose metabolism, and energy expenditure,” according to the company’s announcement. “This includes glucagon-like peptide 1, peptide tyrosine-tyrosine, glicentin, and oxyntomodulin, among others.”
Topline data from the first part of the study are expected to be released by the third quarter.
AZD5004
In November 2023, AstraZeneca entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Eccogene to develop and commercialize ECC5004 (now AZD5004), a tablet formulation of a small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, both as monotherapy and in combination with AZD6234, its antiobesity agent that targets the gut hormone amylin.
“We are excited by the potential of AZD5004 as a novel oral small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist,” a company spokesperson told this news organization. “The phase 1 study has provided us with the confidence to progress development into a phase 2 program studying patients with type 2 diabetes and in obesity. We are in the process of designing these studies and expect to start them in the second half of 2024.”
Ecnoglutide
In January, Sciwind Biosciences announced positive interim results from the first four cohorts of a phase 1 clinical trial of oral ecnoglutide (XW004). Ecnoglutide is a long-acting, cAMP signaling biased, GLP-1 analog being developed for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The phase 1 trial (NCT05184322) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiple ascending dose study that enrolled 42 healthy (cohorts 1-3) and 14 healthy obese (cohort 4) participants in Australia. In cohorts 1-3, target doses were 7 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg XW004 once daily for 2 weeks; in cohort 4, the target dose was 30 mg XW004 once daily for 6 weeks. Treatment periods included gradual dose escalation to the target doses.
Study participants achieved a mean body weight reduction of −6.8% from baseline, compared with −0.9% for the placebo group, according to the company. Based on the positive results, the study is continuing and will evaluate additional dosing regimens, including once-weekly oral administration in participants with obesity.
The company is also developing an injectable formulation of ecnoglutide.
GSBR-1290
On May 9, Structure Therapeutics released highlights of the company›s evaluation of GSBR-1290, an oral small molecule selective GLP-1 receptor agonist. Topline data from the obesity cohort of the phase 2a study, including 12-week efficacy data for 40 participants and safety and tolerability for all 64 participants, are expected in June.
In preparation for later stage clinical trials, the company said it is conducting a formulation bridging and titration study to evaluate capsule vs tablet pharmacokinetics and explore different titration regimens of the molecule. Pharmacokinetic study results are also expected in June.
A global phase 2b obesity study is planned for the fourth quarter of 2024.
Orforglipron
Orforglipron is an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist being developed by Eli Lilly and Co. A phase 3 study of the once-daily capsule is underway, and will run until mid-2027.
Phase 2 data presented last year at the American Diabetes Association conference showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.
Additionally, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the drug was recently published.
A Lilly spokesperson told this news organization that phase 3 results from the ATTAIN-1 study are “expected to be to be available beginning in 2025, and we can expect a launch possibly a year after that.”
VK2735
VK2735, a dual agonist of the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors, is being developed by Viking Therapeutics for the treatment of metabolic disorders, including obesity, in both subcutaneous and oral formulations.
In a phase 1, 28-day multiple ascending dose study, cohorts receiving oral formulation VK2735 had dose-dependent reductions in mean body weight from baseline, ranging up to 5.3%, and also demonstrated reductions in mean body weight relative to placebo, ranging up to 3.3%. For doses ≥ 10 mg, placebo-adjusted reductions in mean body weight were maintained or improved at day 34, 6 days after the last dose of VK2735 was administered, ranging up to 3.6% relative to placebo.
Based on these phase 1 results, the company plans to initiate a phase 2 trial in obesity later this year.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, in line with patient preference.
One particularly intriguing entry is ARD-101, in development by Aardvark Therapeutics in San Diego, California. Aardvark came out of stealth on May 9 with the announcement of $85 million in new financing. The biopharma will use the money to complete trials of ARD-101 to treat hyperphagia in Prader-Willi syndrome, both to help patients quell the unrelenting hunger that characterizes the orphan disease and as a proof of principle to demonstrate the compound’s complementary mechanism of action to the current glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) therapies for obesity.
Oral ARD-101 is a bitter taste receptor (TAS2R) that mediates hunger, whereas the GLP-1 drugs mainly influence appetite, said the company’s CEO, Tien Lee, MD.
“If you love chocolate cake, for instance, appetite is driving you to eat that. And if that chocolate cake were to turn magically into dog food, your appetite probably would go to zero. But if that dog food were your only food source, over enough time, hunger would eventually compel you to eat it. That’s how they’re differentially driven.”
He added, “Hunger and appetite approaches are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re complementary to each other, and they’re additive in terms of treatment effect.”
Now that the company is out of stealth, expect more published data and updates on ongoing studies, he added.
Here’s a look at other promising oral drugs on the horizon.
Oral Semaglutide
The once-daily 50 mg tablet formulation of this GLP-1 receptor agonist is among the nearest to approval. The formulation was studied for weight loss in individuals with overweight/obesity in the OASIS 1 phase 3a trial. When applying the treatment policy estimand (defined as the treatment effect regardless of adherence), people who took the pill achieved a weight loss of 15.1% over 68 weeks compared with a 2.4% reduction with placebo, and 84.9% achieved a weight loss of ≥ 5% vs 25.8% with placebo, according to the manufacturer Novo Nordisk.
A spokesperson for the company told this news organization that, contrary to earlier reports, the 50 mg pill will be submitted for regulatory approval after results from OASIS 4 are in, “so we have the full data set.” OASIS 4 is investigating the 25 mg oral dose, and results are expected this year.
“The US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity,” the spokesperson said. The company can produce semaglutide as a tablet or injectable, but the oral form requires more an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Therefore, production capacities are being expanded globally for both formulations.
Oral Amycretin
Novo Nordisk’s spokesperson said that, as announced in March, results from an exploratory endpoint on body weight change in a phase 1 trial showed an average −13.1% reduction after 12 weeks of treatment with once-daily oral amycretin compared with −1.1% for placebo. The favorable safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile observed in the trial allows for further development of amycretin.
“Moreover,” the spokesperson said, “we are developing the oral small molecule CB1 receptor inverse agonist monlunabant (INV-202), which has shown weight loss potential in phase 1 with a favorable safety and tolerability profile and is currently being investigated in phase 2 in diabetic kidney disease and obesity.”
APH-012
As of April 25, Aphaia Pharma completed enrollment of the first two cohorts in its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept phase 2 trial evaluating a once-daily 12-g dose of its proprietary oral glucose formulation APHD-12 for obesity.
The company also announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expansion of the trial›s protocol to investigate the contribution of circadian effects in weight loss treatment. The new protocol will include additional cohorts, which will be dosed with either 6 g (APHD-006) or 8 g (APHD-008) of Aphaia’s formulation or placebos twice daily. The primary endpoint of the trial is the change from baseline in percent weight compared with placebo. The study will also evaluate exploratory secondary endpoints, which are considered hallmarks of multiple metabolic diseases closely associated with obesity.
The drug candidate is “designed to be released at discrete parts of the small intestine to restore endogenous nutrient-sensing signaling pathways and stimulate the release of the broad spectrum of enteric hormones that control multiple homeostatic functions like appetite, hunger, satiety, glucose metabolism, and energy expenditure,” according to the company’s announcement. “This includes glucagon-like peptide 1, peptide tyrosine-tyrosine, glicentin, and oxyntomodulin, among others.”
Topline data from the first part of the study are expected to be released by the third quarter.
AZD5004
In November 2023, AstraZeneca entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Eccogene to develop and commercialize ECC5004 (now AZD5004), a tablet formulation of a small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, both as monotherapy and in combination with AZD6234, its antiobesity agent that targets the gut hormone amylin.
“We are excited by the potential of AZD5004 as a novel oral small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist,” a company spokesperson told this news organization. “The phase 1 study has provided us with the confidence to progress development into a phase 2 program studying patients with type 2 diabetes and in obesity. We are in the process of designing these studies and expect to start them in the second half of 2024.”
Ecnoglutide
In January, Sciwind Biosciences announced positive interim results from the first four cohorts of a phase 1 clinical trial of oral ecnoglutide (XW004). Ecnoglutide is a long-acting, cAMP signaling biased, GLP-1 analog being developed for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The phase 1 trial (NCT05184322) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiple ascending dose study that enrolled 42 healthy (cohorts 1-3) and 14 healthy obese (cohort 4) participants in Australia. In cohorts 1-3, target doses were 7 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg XW004 once daily for 2 weeks; in cohort 4, the target dose was 30 mg XW004 once daily for 6 weeks. Treatment periods included gradual dose escalation to the target doses.
Study participants achieved a mean body weight reduction of −6.8% from baseline, compared with −0.9% for the placebo group, according to the company. Based on the positive results, the study is continuing and will evaluate additional dosing regimens, including once-weekly oral administration in participants with obesity.
The company is also developing an injectable formulation of ecnoglutide.
GSBR-1290
On May 9, Structure Therapeutics released highlights of the company›s evaluation of GSBR-1290, an oral small molecule selective GLP-1 receptor agonist. Topline data from the obesity cohort of the phase 2a study, including 12-week efficacy data for 40 participants and safety and tolerability for all 64 participants, are expected in June.
In preparation for later stage clinical trials, the company said it is conducting a formulation bridging and titration study to evaluate capsule vs tablet pharmacokinetics and explore different titration regimens of the molecule. Pharmacokinetic study results are also expected in June.
A global phase 2b obesity study is planned for the fourth quarter of 2024.
Orforglipron
Orforglipron is an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist being developed by Eli Lilly and Co. A phase 3 study of the once-daily capsule is underway, and will run until mid-2027.
Phase 2 data presented last year at the American Diabetes Association conference showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.
Additionally, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the drug was recently published.
A Lilly spokesperson told this news organization that phase 3 results from the ATTAIN-1 study are “expected to be to be available beginning in 2025, and we can expect a launch possibly a year after that.”
VK2735
VK2735, a dual agonist of the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors, is being developed by Viking Therapeutics for the treatment of metabolic disorders, including obesity, in both subcutaneous and oral formulations.
In a phase 1, 28-day multiple ascending dose study, cohorts receiving oral formulation VK2735 had dose-dependent reductions in mean body weight from baseline, ranging up to 5.3%, and also demonstrated reductions in mean body weight relative to placebo, ranging up to 3.3%. For doses ≥ 10 mg, placebo-adjusted reductions in mean body weight were maintained or improved at day 34, 6 days after the last dose of VK2735 was administered, ranging up to 3.6% relative to placebo.
Based on these phase 1 results, the company plans to initiate a phase 2 trial in obesity later this year.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, in line with patient preference.
One particularly intriguing entry is ARD-101, in development by Aardvark Therapeutics in San Diego, California. Aardvark came out of stealth on May 9 with the announcement of $85 million in new financing. The biopharma will use the money to complete trials of ARD-101 to treat hyperphagia in Prader-Willi syndrome, both to help patients quell the unrelenting hunger that characterizes the orphan disease and as a proof of principle to demonstrate the compound’s complementary mechanism of action to the current glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) therapies for obesity.
Oral ARD-101 is a bitter taste receptor (TAS2R) that mediates hunger, whereas the GLP-1 drugs mainly influence appetite, said the company’s CEO, Tien Lee, MD.
“If you love chocolate cake, for instance, appetite is driving you to eat that. And if that chocolate cake were to turn magically into dog food, your appetite probably would go to zero. But if that dog food were your only food source, over enough time, hunger would eventually compel you to eat it. That’s how they’re differentially driven.”
He added, “Hunger and appetite approaches are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re complementary to each other, and they’re additive in terms of treatment effect.”
Now that the company is out of stealth, expect more published data and updates on ongoing studies, he added.
Here’s a look at other promising oral drugs on the horizon.
Oral Semaglutide
The once-daily 50 mg tablet formulation of this GLP-1 receptor agonist is among the nearest to approval. The formulation was studied for weight loss in individuals with overweight/obesity in the OASIS 1 phase 3a trial. When applying the treatment policy estimand (defined as the treatment effect regardless of adherence), people who took the pill achieved a weight loss of 15.1% over 68 weeks compared with a 2.4% reduction with placebo, and 84.9% achieved a weight loss of ≥ 5% vs 25.8% with placebo, according to the manufacturer Novo Nordisk.
A spokesperson for the company told this news organization that, contrary to earlier reports, the 50 mg pill will be submitted for regulatory approval after results from OASIS 4 are in, “so we have the full data set.” OASIS 4 is investigating the 25 mg oral dose, and results are expected this year.
“The US launch of oral semaglutide for obesity will be contingent on portfolio prioritization and manufacturing capacity,” the spokesperson said. The company can produce semaglutide as a tablet or injectable, but the oral form requires more an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Therefore, production capacities are being expanded globally for both formulations.
Oral Amycretin
Novo Nordisk’s spokesperson said that, as announced in March, results from an exploratory endpoint on body weight change in a phase 1 trial showed an average −13.1% reduction after 12 weeks of treatment with once-daily oral amycretin compared with −1.1% for placebo. The favorable safety/tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile observed in the trial allows for further development of amycretin.
“Moreover,” the spokesperson said, “we are developing the oral small molecule CB1 receptor inverse agonist monlunabant (INV-202), which has shown weight loss potential in phase 1 with a favorable safety and tolerability profile and is currently being investigated in phase 2 in diabetic kidney disease and obesity.”
APH-012
As of April 25, Aphaia Pharma completed enrollment of the first two cohorts in its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept phase 2 trial evaluating a once-daily 12-g dose of its proprietary oral glucose formulation APHD-12 for obesity.
The company also announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved an expansion of the trial›s protocol to investigate the contribution of circadian effects in weight loss treatment. The new protocol will include additional cohorts, which will be dosed with either 6 g (APHD-006) or 8 g (APHD-008) of Aphaia’s formulation or placebos twice daily. The primary endpoint of the trial is the change from baseline in percent weight compared with placebo. The study will also evaluate exploratory secondary endpoints, which are considered hallmarks of multiple metabolic diseases closely associated with obesity.
The drug candidate is “designed to be released at discrete parts of the small intestine to restore endogenous nutrient-sensing signaling pathways and stimulate the release of the broad spectrum of enteric hormones that control multiple homeostatic functions like appetite, hunger, satiety, glucose metabolism, and energy expenditure,” according to the company’s announcement. “This includes glucagon-like peptide 1, peptide tyrosine-tyrosine, glicentin, and oxyntomodulin, among others.”
Topline data from the first part of the study are expected to be released by the third quarter.
AZD5004
In November 2023, AstraZeneca entered into an exclusive licensing agreement with Eccogene to develop and commercialize ECC5004 (now AZD5004), a tablet formulation of a small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist, both as monotherapy and in combination with AZD6234, its antiobesity agent that targets the gut hormone amylin.
“We are excited by the potential of AZD5004 as a novel oral small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist,” a company spokesperson told this news organization. “The phase 1 study has provided us with the confidence to progress development into a phase 2 program studying patients with type 2 diabetes and in obesity. We are in the process of designing these studies and expect to start them in the second half of 2024.”
Ecnoglutide
In January, Sciwind Biosciences announced positive interim results from the first four cohorts of a phase 1 clinical trial of oral ecnoglutide (XW004). Ecnoglutide is a long-acting, cAMP signaling biased, GLP-1 analog being developed for the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
The phase 1 trial (NCT05184322) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multiple ascending dose study that enrolled 42 healthy (cohorts 1-3) and 14 healthy obese (cohort 4) participants in Australia. In cohorts 1-3, target doses were 7 mg, 15 mg, or 30 mg XW004 once daily for 2 weeks; in cohort 4, the target dose was 30 mg XW004 once daily for 6 weeks. Treatment periods included gradual dose escalation to the target doses.
Study participants achieved a mean body weight reduction of −6.8% from baseline, compared with −0.9% for the placebo group, according to the company. Based on the positive results, the study is continuing and will evaluate additional dosing regimens, including once-weekly oral administration in participants with obesity.
The company is also developing an injectable formulation of ecnoglutide.
GSBR-1290
On May 9, Structure Therapeutics released highlights of the company›s evaluation of GSBR-1290, an oral small molecule selective GLP-1 receptor agonist. Topline data from the obesity cohort of the phase 2a study, including 12-week efficacy data for 40 participants and safety and tolerability for all 64 participants, are expected in June.
In preparation for later stage clinical trials, the company said it is conducting a formulation bridging and titration study to evaluate capsule vs tablet pharmacokinetics and explore different titration regimens of the molecule. Pharmacokinetic study results are also expected in June.
A global phase 2b obesity study is planned for the fourth quarter of 2024.
Orforglipron
Orforglipron is an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist being developed by Eli Lilly and Co. A phase 3 study of the once-daily capsule is underway, and will run until mid-2027.
Phase 2 data presented last year at the American Diabetes Association conference showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.
Additionally, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the drug was recently published.
A Lilly spokesperson told this news organization that phase 3 results from the ATTAIN-1 study are “expected to be to be available beginning in 2025, and we can expect a launch possibly a year after that.”
VK2735
VK2735, a dual agonist of the GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptors, is being developed by Viking Therapeutics for the treatment of metabolic disorders, including obesity, in both subcutaneous and oral formulations.
In a phase 1, 28-day multiple ascending dose study, cohorts receiving oral formulation VK2735 had dose-dependent reductions in mean body weight from baseline, ranging up to 5.3%, and also demonstrated reductions in mean body weight relative to placebo, ranging up to 3.3%. For doses ≥ 10 mg, placebo-adjusted reductions in mean body weight were maintained or improved at day 34, 6 days after the last dose of VK2735 was administered, ranging up to 3.6% relative to placebo.
Based on these phase 1 results, the company plans to initiate a phase 2 trial in obesity later this year.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can Insulin Sensitivity Preserve Muscle During Weight Loss?
TOPLINE:
A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
- The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
- Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
- Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
- Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
- Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
- The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.
IN PRACTICE:
“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
- The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
- Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
- Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
- Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
- Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
- The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.
IN PRACTICE:
“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A study found that higher insulin sensitivity is associated with a decrease in lean mass loss during weight loss.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a 16-week controlled feeding study involving adults with overweight or obesity.
- The study included 57 participants with a baseline body mass index of 32.1 ± 3.8 kg/m2 .
- Participants were assigned to either a standard (55% carbohydrate) or reduced carbohydrate diet (43% carbohydrate). Both groups consumed 18% protein.
- Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and at 16 weeks.
- Insulin sensitivity was measured using an intravenous glucose tolerance test, with multiple linear regression used to analyze the data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Lower baseline insulin was a predictor of greater lean muscle mass loss during weight loss.
- Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions could allow for personalized approaches to minimize lean mass loss.
- The study suggested that insulin sensitivity plays a significant role in determining the composition of weight lost during dieting.
IN PRACTICE:
“Identifying individuals with low insulin sensitivity prior to weight loss interventions may allow for a personalized approach aiming at minimizing lean mass loss,” wrote the authors of the study. This insight underscores the importance of considering insulin sensitivity in weight loss programs to preserve muscle mass. Individuals with low insulin sensitivity may benefit from increasing protein and incorporating resistance training during weight loss.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ciera L. Bartholomew, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Alabama. It was published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s secondary analysis nature and its relatively small sample size limit the ability to establish relationships between insulin sensitivity and lean muscle loss. In addition, all food was provided, and participants all consumed the same protein level.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a National Institutes of Health Research Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is Semaglutide the ‘New Statin’? Not So Fast
There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”
In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD.
The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal
Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.
In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.
Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
Semaglutide vs Statins
How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?
The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.
Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.
So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated.
In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies.
The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.
We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked
Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide.
Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.
Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now
In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.
However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date.
The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.
Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”
In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD.
The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal
Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.
In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.
Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
Semaglutide vs Statins
How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?
The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.
Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.
So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated.
In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies.
The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.
We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked
Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide.
Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.
Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now
In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.
However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date.
The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.
Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There has been much hyperbole since the presentation of results from the SELECT cardiovascular outcomes trial (CVOT) at this year’s European Congress on Obesity, which led many to herald semaglutide as the “new statin.”
In the SELECT CVOT, participants with overweight or obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 27), established cardiovascular disease (CVD), and no history of type 2 diabetes were administered the injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Wegovy) at a 2.4-mg dose weekly. Treatment resulted in a significant 20% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events (a composite endpoint comprising CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). Importantly, SELECT was a trial on secondary prevention of CVD.
The CV benefits of semaglutide were notably independent of baseline weight or amount of weight lost. This suggests that the underlying driver of improved CV outcomes with semaglutide extends beyond simple reduction in obesity and perhaps indicates a direct effect on vasculature and reduction in atherosclerosis, although this remains unproven.
Not All Risk Reduction Is Equal
Much of the sensationalist coverage in the lay press focused on the 20% relative risk reduction figure. This endpoint is often more impressive and headline-grabbing than the absolute risk reduction, which provides a clearer view of a treatment’s real-world impact.
In SELECT, the absolute risk reduction was 1.5 percentage points, which translated into a number needed to treat (NNT) of 67 over 34 months to prevent one primary outcome of a major adverse CV event.
Lower NNTs suggest more effective treatments because fewer people need to be treated to prevent one clinical event, such as the major adverse CV events used in SELECT.
Semaglutide vs Statins
How does the clinical effectiveness observed in the SELECT trial compare with that observed in statin trials when it comes to the secondary prevention of CVD?
The seminal 4S study published in 1994 explored the impact of simvastatin on all-cause mortality among people with previous myocardial infarction or angina and hyperlipidemia (mean baseline BMI, 26). After 5.4 years of follow-up, the trial was stopped early owing to a 3.3-percentage point absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality (NNT, 30; relative risk reduction, 28%). The NNT to prevent one death from CV causes was 31, and the NNT to prevent one major coronary event was lower, at 15.
Other statin secondary prevention trials, such as the LIPID and MIRACL studies, demonstrated similarly low NNTs.
So, you can see that the NNTs for statins in secondary prevention are much lower than with semaglutide in SELECT. Furthermore, the benefits of semaglutide in preventing CVD in people living with overweight/obesity have yet to be elucidated.
In contrast, we already have published evidence showing the benefits of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, albeit with higher and more variable NNTs than in the statin secondary prevention studies.
The benefits of statins are also postulated to extend beyond their impact on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins have been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and plaque-stabilizing effects, among other pleiotropic benefits.
We also currently lack evidence for the cost-effectiveness of semaglutide for CV risk reduction. Assessing economic viability and use in health care systems, such as the UK’s National Health Service, involves comparing the cost of semaglutide against the health care savings from prevented CV events. Health economic studies are vital to determine whether the benefits justify the expense. In contrast, the cost-effectiveness of statins is well established, particularly for high-risk individuals.
Advantages of GLP-1s Should Not Be Overlooked
Of course, statins don’t provide the significant weight loss benefits of semaglutide.
Additional data from SELECT presented at the 2024 European Congress on Obesity demonstrated that participants lost a mean of 10.2% body weight and 7.7 cm from their waist circumference after 4 years. Moreover, after 2 years, 12% of individuals randomized to semaglutide had returned to a normal BMI, and nearly half were no longer living with obesity.
Although the CV benefits of semaglutide were independent of weight reduction, this level of weight loss is clinically meaningful and will reduce the risk of many other cardiometabolic conditions including type 2 diabetes, metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome, as well as improve low mood, depression, and overall quality of life. Additionally, obesity is now a risk factor for 13 different types of cancer, including bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer, so facilitating a return to a healthier body weight will also mitigate future risk for cancer.
Sticking With Our Cornerstone Therapy, For Now
In conclusion, I do not believe that semaglutide is the “new statin.” Statins are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of CVD in a wide range of comorbidities, as evidenced in multiple large and high-quality trials dating back over 30 years.
However, there is no doubt that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is the most significant therapeutic advance for the management of obesity and comorbidities to date.
The SELECT CVOT data uniquely position semaglutide as a secondary CVD prevention agent on top of guideline-driven management for people living with overweight/obesity and established CVD. Additionally, the clinically meaningful weight loss achieved with semaglutide will impact the risk of developing many other cardiometabolic conditions, as well as improve mental health and overall quality of life.
Dr. Fernando, GP Partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, creates concise clinical aide-mémoire for primary and secondary care to make life easier for health care professionals and ultimately to improve the lives of patients. He is very active on social media (X handle @drkevinfernando), where he posts hot topics in type 2 diabetes and CVRM. He recently has forayed into YouTube (@DrKevinFernando) and TikTok (@drkevinfernando) with patient-facing video content. Dr. Fernando has been elected to Fellowship of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and the Academy of Medical Educators for his work in diabetes and medical education. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Lilly; Menarini; Bayer; Dexcom; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Amgen; and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Don’t Screen’ for Vitamin D: New Endo Society Guideline
BOSTON —
The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include:
- Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
- Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
- Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
- Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes
In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations.
In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions.
Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”
Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”
Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”
Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].”
Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”
Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”
However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”
In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”
Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”
Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.”
In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing:
The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.
Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON —
The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include:
- Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
- Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
- Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
- Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes
In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations.
In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions.
Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”
Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”
Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”
Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].”
Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”
Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”
However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”
In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”
Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”
Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.”
In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing:
The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.
Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BOSTON —
The evidence-based document was presented on June 3, 2024, at the Endocrine Society annual meeting, and simultaneously published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. It advises that people who may benefit from vitamin D supplementation include:
- Children aged 1-18 years to prevent rickets and to potentially lower the risk for respiratory tract infections
- Pregnant people to lower the risk for maternal and fetal or neonatal complications
- Adults older than 75 years to lower the risk for mortality
- Adults with prediabetes to lower the risk for type 2 diabetes
In those groups, the recommendation is for daily (rather than intermittent) empiric vitamin D supplementation of more than what was recommended in 2011 by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which was then called the Institute of Medicine (IOM): 600 IU/d for those aged 1-70 years and 800 IU/d for those older than 70 years. The document acknowledges that the optimal dose for these populations isn’t known, but it provides the dose ranges that were used in the trials cited as evidence for the recommendations.
In contrast, the document advises against more vitamin D than the recommended daily intake for most healthier adults younger than 75 years and recommends against testing for blood vitamin D levels in the general population, including those with obesity or darker complexions.
Guideline author Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization, “this guideline refers to people who are otherwise healthy, and there’s no clear indication for vitamin D, such as people with already established osteoporosis. This guideline is not relevant to them.”
Dr. Pittas also noted, “there’s no single question and single answer about the role of vitamin D in health and disease, which is what people often want to know. There are many questions, and we cannot answer all of them.”
Panel Chair Marie B. Demay, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization that indeed the panel was limited by lack of randomized clinical trial evidence to answer many important questions. “There is a paucity of data regarding definition of optimal levels and optimal intake of vitamin D for preventing specific diseases ... What we really need are large scale clinical trials and biomarkers so we can predict disease outcome before it happens.”
Overall, Dr. Demay said, “The recommendations are that populations adhere to the [NAM/IOM] dietary recommended intakes, and there are certain populations that will likely benefit from levels of intake above [those].”
Asked to comment, session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine, noted that screening for vitamin D is quite common in clinical practice, but the recommendation against doing so makes sense.
“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it. That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”
Dr. Rosen, who was an author on the 2011 NAM/IOM dietary reference intakes, said that since then, new data have come out regarding the role of vitamin D in mortality in people older than 75 years, benefit in children with regard to respiratory illness, and the potential benefit of vitamin D in pregnancy. “Otherwise, I think we’re going over a lot of the same stuff that we’ve talked about since I was on the IOM panel 15 years ago ... But I think the level of evidence and rigor with which they did it is really impressive.”
However, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, expressed disappointment that the document was limited to healthy people. “Although acknowledging challenges in managing vitamin D status in patients with several diseases, [such as] chronic kidney disease or inflammatory bowel disease, the new guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance for practicing physicians about how to manage these complex patients.”
In addition, Dr. Taylor said that the guidelines “do not explicitly consider the literature suggesting that alternative testing strategies may provide more relevant insights into vitamin D status. Just as variation in levels of thyroid-binding globulin have convinced endocrinologists not to rely on measurement of total thyroxine; interindividual variation in levels of vitamin D binding protein must be accounted for to interpret measurements of total levels of 25(OH)D. It would have been useful to explicitly consider the possible value of measuring vitamin D binding protein-independent indices of vitamin D status.”
Dr. Taylor also raised the same point as an audience member did during the Q&A period regarding patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. “The value and utility of the new guidelines would be greatly strengthened by providing guidance for how to approach this important and very large group of individuals.”
Dr. Taylor did say that the document has “several strengths, including the fact that they acknowledge the major limitations of the quality of relevant evidence derived from clinical trials.”
In an accompanying commentary, the guideline authors delve into the issues of skin pigmentation and race as they pertain to vitamin D metabolism, writing:
The panel discovered that no randomized clinical trials have directly assessed vitamin D related patient-important outcomes based on participants’ skin pigmentation, although race and ethnicity often served as presumed proxies for skin pigmentation in the literature. In their deliberations, guideline panel members and selected Endocrine Society leaders underscored the critical need to distinguish between skin pigmentation as a biological variable and race and ethnicity as socially determined constructs. This differentiation is vital to maximize scientific rigor and, thus, the validity of resulting recommendations.
Dr. Pittas and Dr. Demay have no disclosures relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Dr. Rosen has no disclosures. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Semaglutide Improves Taste Sensitivity in Women With Obesity
The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) enhances taste sensitivity, changes brain responses to sweet tastes and may even alter expression of genes in the tongue associated with taste bud development, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, held in Boston.
“Some studies have reported that individuals living with obesity often perceive tastes as less intense,” noted Mojca Jensterle Sever, PhD, of the University Medical Centre in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who presented the work. Research also suggests that “populations prone to obesity have an inherently elevated desire for sweet and energy-dense foods,” she continued.
Studies in animal models have also previously shown that GLP-1 plays an important role in taste sensitivity, but it was not known if this hormone also influenced human taste perception.
In this proof-of-concept study, researchers randomly assigned 30 women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to either 1 mg of semaglutide, administered once a week, or placebo for 16 weeks. Participants were on average 34 years old with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.4. Participants with PCOS were selected with the “aim to reduce variability in taste perception across different phases of the menstrual cycle,” Dr. Sever said.
Prior to the intervention, researchers tested participants’ taste sensitivity using 16 taste strips infused with four different concentrations of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter substances. Participants were asked to identify the taste of each strip. Every correct answer counted as one point, with a possible total of 16 points overall. Tongue biopsies were conducted for gene expression analysis.
Researchers also used functional MRI (fMRI) to evaluate brain responses to a series of calorie-dense, low-calorie, and non-food visual cues as well as to sweet taste stimulus. A sweet solution was administered on the tongue 30 minutes before and after participants consumed a standardized meal: a high-protein enriched nutritional drink.
These tests were repeated after 16 weeks.
The semaglutide group also exhibited decreased activation of the putamen (a structure in the brain involved with the brain’s reward system) on fMRI in response to calorie-dense cues. In response to sweet taste stimulus, those taking semaglutide showed increased activation of angular gyrus on MRI compared with the placebo group. The angular gyrus is part of the brain’s parietal lobe and is involved with language, memory, reasoning, and attention.
Lastly, researchers identified differential mRNA expression in the genes EYA, PRMT8, CRLF1, and CYP1B1, which are associated with taste bud development, renewal, and differentiation.
The findings are “fascinating, because we think about all of the factors that this new class of agents are able to improve, but taste is often not something that we look at, though there have been very strong associations,” said Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, who moderated the session.
“Is it possible that another mechanism of action for this class of agents is perhaps indirectly altering our taste perception,” she posited, and, because of that, “we have an altered sense of satiety and hunger?”
Dr. Sever noted Dr. Several limitations to the study, including that only specific tastes were evaluated in a controlled study environment, “which may not reflect everyday experience,” she said. Taste perception can also vary widely from person to person, and changes in mRNA expression do not necessarily reflect changes in protein levels or activity.
“Our study should be seen and interpreted as a proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Sever added, with additional research needed to explore the relationship between semaglutide and taste perception.
Dr. Srivastava consults for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. She has received research grant support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Sever reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) enhances taste sensitivity, changes brain responses to sweet tastes and may even alter expression of genes in the tongue associated with taste bud development, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, held in Boston.
“Some studies have reported that individuals living with obesity often perceive tastes as less intense,” noted Mojca Jensterle Sever, PhD, of the University Medical Centre in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who presented the work. Research also suggests that “populations prone to obesity have an inherently elevated desire for sweet and energy-dense foods,” she continued.
Studies in animal models have also previously shown that GLP-1 plays an important role in taste sensitivity, but it was not known if this hormone also influenced human taste perception.
In this proof-of-concept study, researchers randomly assigned 30 women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to either 1 mg of semaglutide, administered once a week, or placebo for 16 weeks. Participants were on average 34 years old with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.4. Participants with PCOS were selected with the “aim to reduce variability in taste perception across different phases of the menstrual cycle,” Dr. Sever said.
Prior to the intervention, researchers tested participants’ taste sensitivity using 16 taste strips infused with four different concentrations of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter substances. Participants were asked to identify the taste of each strip. Every correct answer counted as one point, with a possible total of 16 points overall. Tongue biopsies were conducted for gene expression analysis.
Researchers also used functional MRI (fMRI) to evaluate brain responses to a series of calorie-dense, low-calorie, and non-food visual cues as well as to sweet taste stimulus. A sweet solution was administered on the tongue 30 minutes before and after participants consumed a standardized meal: a high-protein enriched nutritional drink.
These tests were repeated after 16 weeks.
The semaglutide group also exhibited decreased activation of the putamen (a structure in the brain involved with the brain’s reward system) on fMRI in response to calorie-dense cues. In response to sweet taste stimulus, those taking semaglutide showed increased activation of angular gyrus on MRI compared with the placebo group. The angular gyrus is part of the brain’s parietal lobe and is involved with language, memory, reasoning, and attention.
Lastly, researchers identified differential mRNA expression in the genes EYA, PRMT8, CRLF1, and CYP1B1, which are associated with taste bud development, renewal, and differentiation.
The findings are “fascinating, because we think about all of the factors that this new class of agents are able to improve, but taste is often not something that we look at, though there have been very strong associations,” said Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, who moderated the session.
“Is it possible that another mechanism of action for this class of agents is perhaps indirectly altering our taste perception,” she posited, and, because of that, “we have an altered sense of satiety and hunger?”
Dr. Sever noted Dr. Several limitations to the study, including that only specific tastes were evaluated in a controlled study environment, “which may not reflect everyday experience,” she said. Taste perception can also vary widely from person to person, and changes in mRNA expression do not necessarily reflect changes in protein levels or activity.
“Our study should be seen and interpreted as a proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Sever added, with additional research needed to explore the relationship between semaglutide and taste perception.
Dr. Srivastava consults for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. She has received research grant support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Sever reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) enhances taste sensitivity, changes brain responses to sweet tastes and may even alter expression of genes in the tongue associated with taste bud development, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, held in Boston.
“Some studies have reported that individuals living with obesity often perceive tastes as less intense,” noted Mojca Jensterle Sever, PhD, of the University Medical Centre in Ljubljana, Slovenia, who presented the work. Research also suggests that “populations prone to obesity have an inherently elevated desire for sweet and energy-dense foods,” she continued.
Studies in animal models have also previously shown that GLP-1 plays an important role in taste sensitivity, but it was not known if this hormone also influenced human taste perception.
In this proof-of-concept study, researchers randomly assigned 30 women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to either 1 mg of semaglutide, administered once a week, or placebo for 16 weeks. Participants were on average 34 years old with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.4. Participants with PCOS were selected with the “aim to reduce variability in taste perception across different phases of the menstrual cycle,” Dr. Sever said.
Prior to the intervention, researchers tested participants’ taste sensitivity using 16 taste strips infused with four different concentrations of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter substances. Participants were asked to identify the taste of each strip. Every correct answer counted as one point, with a possible total of 16 points overall. Tongue biopsies were conducted for gene expression analysis.
Researchers also used functional MRI (fMRI) to evaluate brain responses to a series of calorie-dense, low-calorie, and non-food visual cues as well as to sweet taste stimulus. A sweet solution was administered on the tongue 30 minutes before and after participants consumed a standardized meal: a high-protein enriched nutritional drink.
These tests were repeated after 16 weeks.
The semaglutide group also exhibited decreased activation of the putamen (a structure in the brain involved with the brain’s reward system) on fMRI in response to calorie-dense cues. In response to sweet taste stimulus, those taking semaglutide showed increased activation of angular gyrus on MRI compared with the placebo group. The angular gyrus is part of the brain’s parietal lobe and is involved with language, memory, reasoning, and attention.
Lastly, researchers identified differential mRNA expression in the genes EYA, PRMT8, CRLF1, and CYP1B1, which are associated with taste bud development, renewal, and differentiation.
The findings are “fascinating, because we think about all of the factors that this new class of agents are able to improve, but taste is often not something that we look at, though there have been very strong associations,” said Gitanjali Srivastava, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, who moderated the session.
“Is it possible that another mechanism of action for this class of agents is perhaps indirectly altering our taste perception,” she posited, and, because of that, “we have an altered sense of satiety and hunger?”
Dr. Sever noted Dr. Several limitations to the study, including that only specific tastes were evaluated in a controlled study environment, “which may not reflect everyday experience,” she said. Taste perception can also vary widely from person to person, and changes in mRNA expression do not necessarily reflect changes in protein levels or activity.
“Our study should be seen and interpreted as a proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Sever added, with additional research needed to explore the relationship between semaglutide and taste perception.
Dr. Srivastava consults for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals. She has received research grant support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Sever reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
‘Ozempic Burgers’ Offer Indulgences to People With Obesity
My crystal ball says that Big Food’s ongoing development and marketing of products designed for the reduced appetites of people taking anti-obesity medications will simultaneously be welcomed by their target market and scorned by self-righteous, healthy-living, just-try-harder, isn’t-this-just-feeding-the-problem hypocrites.
For the privileged, self-righteous, healthy-living crowd, the right to enjoy dietary indulgences and conveniences is inversely proportional to your weight. Often, judgment isn’t cast on the less-than-perfect choices of those with so-called “normal” weight; that’s often not the case for those with obesity.
Think you’re free from this paradigm? If you are, good for you. But I’d wager that there are plenty of readers who state that they’re free from bias, but when standing in supermarket checkout lines, they scrutinize and silently pass judgment on the contents of the grocery carts of people with obesity or, similarly, on the orders of people with obesity in fast-food restaurants.
Yet, there are bags of chips and cookies in most of our weekly carts, and who among us doesn’t, at times, grab some greasy comfort or convenience?
Unfortunately, the fuel for these sorts of judgments — implicit weight bias — is not only pervasive but also durable. A recent study of temporal changes to implicit biases demonstrated that unlike biases about race, skin tone, sexuality, age, and disability — between 2007 and 2016, tested levels of these implicit bias were seen to be in decline —biases about weight remain stable.
As to the products themselves, according to the recent article, they’ll be smaller, lower in calories, and high in protein and fat. To put it another way, compared with their nonshrunken counterparts,
With that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t assert that the discussion of the merits or lack thereof of these sorts of offerings is misguided and pointless in that the food industry’s job is not one of social service provision or preventive healthcare. As I’ve written in the past, the food industry is neither friend, foe, nor partner. The food industry’s one job is to sell food, and if they see a market opportunity, they’ll take it. In this case, that turns out to be refreshing in a sense in that unlike moral-panic scolds, the food industry doesn’t judge its customers’ right to buy its products on the basis of how much their customers weigh.
Whereas the food industry’s response to anti-obesity medications’ impact on appetite may be to embrace it, many others’, including in medicine, seem to involve some degree of judgment or scorn. Yes, our behavior has an impact on our weight, but intentional behavior change in the name of weight requires multiple layers of deep and perpetual privilege. And yes, our environment is indeed a tremendous contributor to the challenge of obesity, but the world is full of medical conditions influenced or caused by our environment. Yet, discussions around how medications fail to address obesity’s root cause are the only such root-cause discussions I ever see.
Put more plainly, “how dare we develop medications for conditions influenced by our environment” is an odd stance to take in a world full of conditions influenced by our environments and where our environments’ primary change-driver is sales. Products that support the use of medications that improve life’s quality while markedly reducing the risk for an ever-growing number of conditions should be celebrated.
Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; received research grant from Novo Nordisk; publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
My crystal ball says that Big Food’s ongoing development and marketing of products designed for the reduced appetites of people taking anti-obesity medications will simultaneously be welcomed by their target market and scorned by self-righteous, healthy-living, just-try-harder, isn’t-this-just-feeding-the-problem hypocrites.
For the privileged, self-righteous, healthy-living crowd, the right to enjoy dietary indulgences and conveniences is inversely proportional to your weight. Often, judgment isn’t cast on the less-than-perfect choices of those with so-called “normal” weight; that’s often not the case for those with obesity.
Think you’re free from this paradigm? If you are, good for you. But I’d wager that there are plenty of readers who state that they’re free from bias, but when standing in supermarket checkout lines, they scrutinize and silently pass judgment on the contents of the grocery carts of people with obesity or, similarly, on the orders of people with obesity in fast-food restaurants.
Yet, there are bags of chips and cookies in most of our weekly carts, and who among us doesn’t, at times, grab some greasy comfort or convenience?
Unfortunately, the fuel for these sorts of judgments — implicit weight bias — is not only pervasive but also durable. A recent study of temporal changes to implicit biases demonstrated that unlike biases about race, skin tone, sexuality, age, and disability — between 2007 and 2016, tested levels of these implicit bias were seen to be in decline —biases about weight remain stable.
As to the products themselves, according to the recent article, they’ll be smaller, lower in calories, and high in protein and fat. To put it another way, compared with their nonshrunken counterparts,
With that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t assert that the discussion of the merits or lack thereof of these sorts of offerings is misguided and pointless in that the food industry’s job is not one of social service provision or preventive healthcare. As I’ve written in the past, the food industry is neither friend, foe, nor partner. The food industry’s one job is to sell food, and if they see a market opportunity, they’ll take it. In this case, that turns out to be refreshing in a sense in that unlike moral-panic scolds, the food industry doesn’t judge its customers’ right to buy its products on the basis of how much their customers weigh.
Whereas the food industry’s response to anti-obesity medications’ impact on appetite may be to embrace it, many others’, including in medicine, seem to involve some degree of judgment or scorn. Yes, our behavior has an impact on our weight, but intentional behavior change in the name of weight requires multiple layers of deep and perpetual privilege. And yes, our environment is indeed a tremendous contributor to the challenge of obesity, but the world is full of medical conditions influenced or caused by our environment. Yet, discussions around how medications fail to address obesity’s root cause are the only such root-cause discussions I ever see.
Put more plainly, “how dare we develop medications for conditions influenced by our environment” is an odd stance to take in a world full of conditions influenced by our environments and where our environments’ primary change-driver is sales. Products that support the use of medications that improve life’s quality while markedly reducing the risk for an ever-growing number of conditions should be celebrated.
Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; received research grant from Novo Nordisk; publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
My crystal ball says that Big Food’s ongoing development and marketing of products designed for the reduced appetites of people taking anti-obesity medications will simultaneously be welcomed by their target market and scorned by self-righteous, healthy-living, just-try-harder, isn’t-this-just-feeding-the-problem hypocrites.
For the privileged, self-righteous, healthy-living crowd, the right to enjoy dietary indulgences and conveniences is inversely proportional to your weight. Often, judgment isn’t cast on the less-than-perfect choices of those with so-called “normal” weight; that’s often not the case for those with obesity.
Think you’re free from this paradigm? If you are, good for you. But I’d wager that there are plenty of readers who state that they’re free from bias, but when standing in supermarket checkout lines, they scrutinize and silently pass judgment on the contents of the grocery carts of people with obesity or, similarly, on the orders of people with obesity in fast-food restaurants.
Yet, there are bags of chips and cookies in most of our weekly carts, and who among us doesn’t, at times, grab some greasy comfort or convenience?
Unfortunately, the fuel for these sorts of judgments — implicit weight bias — is not only pervasive but also durable. A recent study of temporal changes to implicit biases demonstrated that unlike biases about race, skin tone, sexuality, age, and disability — between 2007 and 2016, tested levels of these implicit bias were seen to be in decline —biases about weight remain stable.
As to the products themselves, according to the recent article, they’ll be smaller, lower in calories, and high in protein and fat. To put it another way, compared with their nonshrunken counterparts,
With that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t assert that the discussion of the merits or lack thereof of these sorts of offerings is misguided and pointless in that the food industry’s job is not one of social service provision or preventive healthcare. As I’ve written in the past, the food industry is neither friend, foe, nor partner. The food industry’s one job is to sell food, and if they see a market opportunity, they’ll take it. In this case, that turns out to be refreshing in a sense in that unlike moral-panic scolds, the food industry doesn’t judge its customers’ right to buy its products on the basis of how much their customers weigh.
Whereas the food industry’s response to anti-obesity medications’ impact on appetite may be to embrace it, many others’, including in medicine, seem to involve some degree of judgment or scorn. Yes, our behavior has an impact on our weight, but intentional behavior change in the name of weight requires multiple layers of deep and perpetual privilege. And yes, our environment is indeed a tremendous contributor to the challenge of obesity, but the world is full of medical conditions influenced or caused by our environment. Yet, discussions around how medications fail to address obesity’s root cause are the only such root-cause discussions I ever see.
Put more plainly, “how dare we develop medications for conditions influenced by our environment” is an odd stance to take in a world full of conditions influenced by our environments and where our environments’ primary change-driver is sales. Products that support the use of medications that improve life’s quality while markedly reducing the risk for an ever-growing number of conditions should be celebrated.
Dr. Freedhoff has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; received research grant from Novo Nordisk; publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.