Obesity

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — What to prioritize first in managing early diabetes? That was the question debated on an expert panel at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, with impassioned responses ranging from a plea to “treat obesity first,” to a James Carville–inspired counterpoint of “it’s the glucose, stupid.” 

With a focus on preventing complications and inducing remission rounding out the four positions argued, Session Moderator Ravi Retnakaran, MD, of the University of Toronto, noted that the options reflect the tricky choices clinicians treating patients with diabetes are pressed to make on a daily basis.

“In clinical decision-making [for early diabetes], we are faced with weighing each of these variables for the individual patient, and while all are good options, strong arguments can be made for prioritizing each — with the potential of each choice to influence or improve all of the others,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization.
 

Which to Prioritize First?

Making the obesity first argument, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, associate professor and director of the Yale Obesity Research Center at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, noted the striking statistic that nearly 90% of people with type 2 diabetes have overweight or obesity and discussed the ever-expanding data showing the benefits of drugs including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists not just in weight loss but also in kidney, cardiovascular, and, as presented at the meeting, sleep apnea improvement.

She contrasted the experiences of two patients with obesity: One treated for the obesity upon type 2 diagnosis — who had a quick normalization of lipids and hypertension soon after the obesity treatment — and the other presenting after 10 years with type 2 diabetes — who was on therapy for hypertension and hyperlipidemia but not for obesity and whose diseases were not as easily treated by that point.

“Why are we treating all the downstream effects and we’re not treating the disease that is potentially the root cause of all these other diseases?” Dr. Jastreboff said.
 

Complications?

Arguing in favor of focusing on complications, Roopa Mehta, MD, PhD, with the department of endocrinology and metabolism at Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (INCMNSZ), Mexico City, made the case that stakes don’t get any higher in diabetes than when it comes the looming threat of potentially fatal complications.

Acute myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, and end-stage renal disease are all on the list of unwanted outcomes and need to be considered even in the earliest stages, as data show early onset type 2 diabetes is linked to life expectancy.

“The main goal of management has always been to prevent complications,” she noted. Citing ADA guidelines, Dr. Mehta underscored the benefits of first- and second-line therapy of metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists for most patients.
 

Remission?

Discussing the priority of putting patients into disease remission, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and author of the book Life Without Diabetes, focused on an evidence-based alternative to achieving remission — a nonpharmacologic approach that avoids costly and sometimes inaccessible drugs.

In the intervention, described in the DiRECT randomized trial and subsequently in the UK National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Program, patients with overweight or obesity were placed on a highly restrictive diet of just 800-900 calories a day for 12-20 weeks, followed by maintenance for 12 months, and they not only achieved weight loss but also achieved diabetes remission, in some cases long term.

Acknowledging that “this is not for everyone,” Dr. Taylor asserted that “we have to realize there is a substantial minority of people who want to be healthy but who don’t want to be medicalized,” he said.

“They want their health, and they can do extremely well.”
 

Glucose?

In taking his self-titled “it’s the glucose, stupid” stand, David M. Nathan, MD, of the Diabetes Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston, cited extensive evidence showing that early intensive blood glucose control with treatment including sulfonylureas, insulin, or metformin significantly reduced the risk for complications in type 2 diabetes 15 or more years later, including renal failure, blindness, amputation, and myocardial infarctions, in addition to a reduction in diabetes-related death.

“In many of these studies, you saw the benefit even in the setting of weight-gain,” Dr. Nathan underscored.

He further noted the “sobering” findings of the Look AHEAD study, which had to be stopped due to futility when an intensive lifestyle/weight loss intervention showed no significant benefits in terms of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes at a median follow-up of 9.6 years.

Ultimately, “diabetes, type 1 and type 2, remains a gluco-centric disease,” Dr. Nathan asserted. “Hyperglycemia is the only universal link between all forms of diabetes and mortality, and the long-term complications of diabetes are intimately associated with hyperglycemia.”
 

Tackling the Caveats

The ensuing panel discussion did not fail to deliver in delving into key areas of contention, particularly in terms of GLP-1 treatment.

Regarding a lack of data on the potential long-term effects of GLP-1s: “Yes, there are a huge number of studies [on GLP-1 receptor agonists], but they are, in general, over short periods of time and driven by pharma, who get in and get out as quickly as they can and have little in the way of interest to do comparative effectiveness studies,” Dr. Nathan argued.

“Meanwhile, this is like the crack cocaine of medications — patients have to stay on it for a lifetime or they will regain the weight — are you concerned at all about a lifetime of exposure to GLP-1 [drugs]?” he asked the panel.

Dr. Jastreboff responded that the first GLP-1 receptor agonist medications were approved in 2005, nearly 20 years ago, by the US Food and Drug Administration.

“Do I think we need long-term lifetime data? Absolutely,” she said. “We need to do our due diligence, we need to be careful, we need to monitor patients, and when and if there are signals, we need to follow them.”

What about the notorious gastrointestinal side effects of the drugs? “A majority of them are mitigated by slow up-titration,” Dr. Jastreboff noted.

“If patients have nausea, I do not go up [in dose]. I invite patients to tell me if they’re having vomiting because I don’t want anybody to have it, and I can count on one hand how many of my patients do.”

Dr. Mehta added the concern that as the drugs’ popularity soars, “a lot of doctors don’t know when they need to put the brakes on [weight coming off too quickly].”

She underscored that “we are not treating obesity for weight loss or for cosmetic reasons — this is about optimizing health.”

Dr. Jastreboff noted that in her practice, “I down-titrate if they’re losing weight too quickly.”

“If the patient is losing more than 1% per week of their body weight, then I slow down to make sure they’re getting the nutrients that they need, that they have enough energy to exercise, and that they’re prioritizing protein and fruits and vegetables in their diet.

“We just need to go slow, and yes, we need to follow them long term,” she said.

Chiming in from the audience, Julio Rosenstock, MD, a recognized thought leader in type 2 diabetes, offered his own take on the issues, describing Dr. Taylor’s very low–calorie diet suggestion as “not realistic” and Dr. Nathan’s glucose-first argument to be “stuck in the past.”

Based on modern-day evidence, “there is no reason on earth to start [diabetes treatment] with only metformin,” asserted Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Velocity Clinical Research center at Medical City and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“We need to start at the very least with metformin and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor from day 1, and then, if it’s affordable and there is access, with a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” he said.

“There is nothing better these days than those agents that consistently have shown a reduction of cardiovascular events and slowing of kidney disease progression.”

Overall, however, “I think you are all right,” he added, a sentiment shared by most.

Noting that the discussion as a whole represents a virtual sea change from the evidence-based options that would have been discussed only a decade ago, Dr. Retnakaran summed up his take-home message: “Stay tuned.

“You could easily see things changing in the next decade to come as we get more data and evidence to support what we ultimately should prioritize an early type 2 diabetes, so this is an exciting time.”

Dr. Retnakaran disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Jastreboff disclosed ties with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics, Terms Pharmaceutical, Weight Watchers, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Roopa had relationships with Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Silanes, and Sanofi. Dr. Taylor received lecture fees from Novartis, Lilly, Abbott, and Nestle Health and research funding from Diabetes UK and is an advisor to Fast800. Dr. Rosenstock reported relationships with Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Hanmi, Merck, Oramed, Structure Therapeutics, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Ragor, and Sanofi. Dr. Nathan had no disclosures to report.
 

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

TOPLINE:

A triple combination therapy (TCT) of metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin is an effective and safe treatment option for drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with stepwise add-on therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines recommend early combination therapy to extend the time to treatment failure, reduce the risk for diabetic complications, and prevent clinical inertia in patients with T2D.
• This randomized controlled open-label trial conducted at nine sites in South Korea included 105 drug-naive patients with T2D (mean age, 49.5 years; 32.4% women) who either received triple therapy (metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin) or stepwise add-on therapy (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin for those with baseline hemoglobin A1c levels < 9.0% or with initial dual metformin and glimepiride in those with A1c levels ≥ 9.0% followed by sitagliptin).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved A1c levels < 6.5% without hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 5%, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104.
• The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients whose A1c levels dropped to < 7.0% at weeks 56 and 104 and dropped to < 6.5% at week 56, all without hypoglycemia, weight gain, nor discontinuation due to adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 104, a higher proportion of patients in the triple therapy group achieved the primary outcome than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (39.0% vs 17.1%; P = .027).
• In both groups, a similar proportion of patients (46.3%) achieved A1c levels < 6.5% at week 104, but the proportion of patients without hypoglycemia, weight gain, or discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the triple therapy group than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (83.3% vs 38.0%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote: “Although the glycemic efficacy of each drug in the TCT was modest, the combination of these drugs resulted in a 2-year durable glycemic efficacy, with greater than a 2.5% reduction in A1c levels from baseline. The overall results of this study suggest a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in newly diagnosed T2D patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nam Hoon Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size as compared with previous clinical trials. More people in the standard therapy group had A1c levels ≥ 9.0%, which resulted in more than double the number of people receiving dual combination therapy over monotherapy in that group. The trial duration was insufficient to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors reported financial ties with AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical and medical device companies as members of advisory boards or recipients of grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or lecture fees.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A triple combination therapy (TCT) of metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin is an effective and safe treatment option for drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with stepwise add-on therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines recommend early combination therapy to extend the time to treatment failure, reduce the risk for diabetic complications, and prevent clinical inertia in patients with T2D.
• This randomized controlled open-label trial conducted at nine sites in South Korea included 105 drug-naive patients with T2D (mean age, 49.5 years; 32.4% women) who either received triple therapy (metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin) or stepwise add-on therapy (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin for those with baseline hemoglobin A1c levels < 9.0% or with initial dual metformin and glimepiride in those with A1c levels ≥ 9.0% followed by sitagliptin).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved A1c levels < 6.5% without hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 5%, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104.
• The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients whose A1c levels dropped to < 7.0% at weeks 56 and 104 and dropped to < 6.5% at week 56, all without hypoglycemia, weight gain, nor discontinuation due to adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 104, a higher proportion of patients in the triple therapy group achieved the primary outcome than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (39.0% vs 17.1%; P = .027).
• In both groups, a similar proportion of patients (46.3%) achieved A1c levels < 6.5% at week 104, but the proportion of patients without hypoglycemia, weight gain, or discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the triple therapy group than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (83.3% vs 38.0%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote: “Although the glycemic efficacy of each drug in the TCT was modest, the combination of these drugs resulted in a 2-year durable glycemic efficacy, with greater than a 2.5% reduction in A1c levels from baseline. The overall results of this study suggest a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in newly diagnosed T2D patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nam Hoon Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size as compared with previous clinical trials. More people in the standard therapy group had A1c levels ≥ 9.0%, which resulted in more than double the number of people receiving dual combination therapy over monotherapy in that group. The trial duration was insufficient to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors reported financial ties with AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical and medical device companies as members of advisory boards or recipients of grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or lecture fees.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A triple combination therapy (TCT) of metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin is an effective and safe treatment option for drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with stepwise add-on therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines recommend early combination therapy to extend the time to treatment failure, reduce the risk for diabetic complications, and prevent clinical inertia in patients with T2D.
• This randomized controlled open-label trial conducted at nine sites in South Korea included 105 drug-naive patients with T2D (mean age, 49.5 years; 32.4% women) who either received triple therapy (metformin, dapagliflozin, and saxagliptin) or stepwise add-on therapy (initiated with metformin, followed by glimepiride and sitagliptin for those with baseline hemoglobin A1c levels < 9.0% or with initial dual metformin and glimepiride in those with A1c levels ≥ 9.0% followed by sitagliptin).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved A1c levels < 6.5% without hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 5%, or discontinuation of drugs because of adverse events at week 104.
• The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients whose A1c levels dropped to < 7.0% at weeks 56 and 104 and dropped to < 6.5% at week 56, all without hypoglycemia, weight gain, nor discontinuation due to adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 104, a higher proportion of patients in the triple therapy group achieved the primary outcome than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (39.0% vs 17.1%; P = .027).
• In both groups, a similar proportion of patients (46.3%) achieved A1c levels < 6.5% at week 104, but the proportion of patients without hypoglycemia, weight gain, or discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the triple therapy group than those in the stepwise add-on therapy group (83.3% vs 38.0%; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote: “Although the glycemic efficacy of each drug in the TCT was modest, the combination of these drugs resulted in a 2-year durable glycemic efficacy, with greater than a 2.5% reduction in A1c levels from baseline. The overall results of this study suggest a novel strategy for initial combination therapy in newly diagnosed T2D patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nam Hoon Kim, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul. It was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size as compared with previous clinical trials. More people in the standard therapy group had A1c levels ≥ 9.0%, which resulted in more than double the number of people receiving dual combination therapy over monotherapy in that group. The trial duration was insufficient to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Some authors reported financial ties with AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical and medical device companies as members of advisory boards or recipients of grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or lecture fees.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sedentary behavior, particularly sitting and watching television, is linked to lower odds of healthy aging, but substituting it with any physical activity — or even sleeping, in case of women with inadequate sleep — may lead to better overall health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that replacing sedentary behavior with physical activity may improve mortality outcomes, but whether this increased lifespan is accompanied by better overall health remains an unanswered question.
• To understand the impact of sedentary behavior and physical activity on healthy aging, researchers analyzed data from the prospective cohort Nurses’ Health Study.
• They included 45,176 women aged > 50 years in 1992 (mean age, 59.2 years) who were free of major chronic diseases and were followed up for 20 years.
• In 1992, validated questionnaires were used to record exposure to sedentary behavior, different levels of physical activity, and sleep. The time spent watching television was the primary exposure in the sedentary behavior category.
• The main outcome was healthy aging, defined as survival to ≥ 70 years of age and maintenance of four domains of health — being free of 11 main chronic diseases and having no impairment of subjective memory, physical function, or mental health.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 20 years of follow-up, 8.6% of the women achieved healthy aging, while 41.4% had none of the 11 chronic diseases, 16.1% had no physical function impairment, 44.1% had no mental health limitation, and 51.9% reported no memory impairment.
• For each increase of 2 hours per day spent sitting and watching television, the odds of healthy aging dropped by 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-17%).
• Conversely, every additional 2 hours per day of low-level physical activity at work upped the odds of healthy aging by 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%); furthermore, each extra hour per day of standardized moderate to vigorous physical activity (normal pace walking or the equivalent) was associated with 14% higher odds (95% CI, 11%-16%) of healthy aging.
• In a theoretical modeling analysis, individuals could increase their odds of healthy aging by replacing 1 hour of television time per day with low levels of physical activity at home and work or with moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity — or even sleeping, for those who slept for ≤ 7 hours.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings expand on the literature reporting that replacing sedentary behavior with light or moderate to vigorous physical activity is associated with decreased mortality by suggesting that this increased lifespan might be accompanied by better overall health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hongying Shi, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, led this study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The measures of different behaviors were self-reported and may, therefore, be less accurate than objective measurement methods. Measurement error may have attenuated the effect of low levels of physical activity. The single exposure assessment at baseline may not reflect the long-term pattern of these activities.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author was supported by the National Social Science Foundation Project of China and the Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project. A co-author and the Nurses’ Health Study were supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Sedentary behavior, particularly sitting and watching television, is linked to lower odds of healthy aging, but substituting it with any physical activity — or even sleeping, in case of women with inadequate sleep — may lead to better overall health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that replacing sedentary behavior with physical activity may improve mortality outcomes, but whether this increased lifespan is accompanied by better overall health remains an unanswered question.
• To understand the impact of sedentary behavior and physical activity on healthy aging, researchers analyzed data from the prospective cohort Nurses’ Health Study.
• They included 45,176 women aged > 50 years in 1992 (mean age, 59.2 years) who were free of major chronic diseases and were followed up for 20 years.
• In 1992, validated questionnaires were used to record exposure to sedentary behavior, different levels of physical activity, and sleep. The time spent watching television was the primary exposure in the sedentary behavior category.
• The main outcome was healthy aging, defined as survival to ≥ 70 years of age and maintenance of four domains of health — being free of 11 main chronic diseases and having no impairment of subjective memory, physical function, or mental health.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 20 years of follow-up, 8.6% of the women achieved healthy aging, while 41.4% had none of the 11 chronic diseases, 16.1% had no physical function impairment, 44.1% had no mental health limitation, and 51.9% reported no memory impairment.
• For each increase of 2 hours per day spent sitting and watching television, the odds of healthy aging dropped by 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-17%).
• Conversely, every additional 2 hours per day of low-level physical activity at work upped the odds of healthy aging by 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%); furthermore, each extra hour per day of standardized moderate to vigorous physical activity (normal pace walking or the equivalent) was associated with 14% higher odds (95% CI, 11%-16%) of healthy aging.
• In a theoretical modeling analysis, individuals could increase their odds of healthy aging by replacing 1 hour of television time per day with low levels of physical activity at home and work or with moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity — or even sleeping, for those who slept for ≤ 7 hours.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings expand on the literature reporting that replacing sedentary behavior with light or moderate to vigorous physical activity is associated with decreased mortality by suggesting that this increased lifespan might be accompanied by better overall health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hongying Shi, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, led this study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The measures of different behaviors were self-reported and may, therefore, be less accurate than objective measurement methods. Measurement error may have attenuated the effect of low levels of physical activity. The single exposure assessment at baseline may not reflect the long-term pattern of these activities.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author was supported by the National Social Science Foundation Project of China and the Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project. A co-author and the Nurses’ Health Study were supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Sedentary behavior, particularly sitting and watching television, is linked to lower odds of healthy aging, but substituting it with any physical activity — or even sleeping, in case of women with inadequate sleep — may lead to better overall health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that replacing sedentary behavior with physical activity may improve mortality outcomes, but whether this increased lifespan is accompanied by better overall health remains an unanswered question.
• To understand the impact of sedentary behavior and physical activity on healthy aging, researchers analyzed data from the prospective cohort Nurses’ Health Study.
• They included 45,176 women aged > 50 years in 1992 (mean age, 59.2 years) who were free of major chronic diseases and were followed up for 20 years.
• In 1992, validated questionnaires were used to record exposure to sedentary behavior, different levels of physical activity, and sleep. The time spent watching television was the primary exposure in the sedentary behavior category.
• The main outcome was healthy aging, defined as survival to ≥ 70 years of age and maintenance of four domains of health — being free of 11 main chronic diseases and having no impairment of subjective memory, physical function, or mental health.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 20 years of follow-up, 8.6% of the women achieved healthy aging, while 41.4% had none of the 11 chronic diseases, 16.1% had no physical function impairment, 44.1% had no mental health limitation, and 51.9% reported no memory impairment.
• For each increase of 2 hours per day spent sitting and watching television, the odds of healthy aging dropped by 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7%-17%).
• Conversely, every additional 2 hours per day of low-level physical activity at work upped the odds of healthy aging by 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%); furthermore, each extra hour per day of standardized moderate to vigorous physical activity (normal pace walking or the equivalent) was associated with 14% higher odds (95% CI, 11%-16%) of healthy aging.
• In a theoretical modeling analysis, individuals could increase their odds of healthy aging by replacing 1 hour of television time per day with low levels of physical activity at home and work or with moderate to vigorous levels of physical activity — or even sleeping, for those who slept for ≤ 7 hours.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings expand on the literature reporting that replacing sedentary behavior with light or moderate to vigorous physical activity is associated with decreased mortality by suggesting that this increased lifespan might be accompanied by better overall health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Hongying Shi, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, led this study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The measures of different behaviors were self-reported and may, therefore, be less accurate than objective measurement methods. Measurement error may have attenuated the effect of low levels of physical activity. The single exposure assessment at baseline may not reflect the long-term pattern of these activities.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead author was supported by the National Social Science Foundation Project of China and the Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project. A co-author and the Nurses’ Health Study were supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I am not planning on having a headstone on my grave, or even having a grave for that matter. However, if my heirs decide to ignore my wishes and opt for some pithy observation chiseled into a tastefully sized granite block, I suspect they might choose “He always knew which way the wind was blowing ... but wasn’t so sure about the tides.” Which aptly describes both my navigational deficiencies they have observed here over my six decades on the Maine coast as well as my general inability to predict the future. Nonetheless, I am going to throw caution to the wind and take this opportunity to ponder where obesity in this country will go over the next couple of decades.

In March of last year the London-based World Obesity Federation published its World Obesity Atlas. In the summary the authors predict that based on current trends “obesity will cost the global economy of US $4 trillion of potential income in 2035, nearly 3% of current global domestic product (GDP).” They envision the “rising prevalence of obesity to be steepest among children and adolescents rising from 10% to 20% of the world’s boys during the period 2029 to 2035, and rising fro 8% to 18% of the world’s girls.”

These dire predictions assume no significant measures to reverse this trajectory such as universal health coverage. Nor do the authors attempt to predict the effect of the growing use of GLP-1 agonists. This omission is surprising and somewhat refreshing given the fact that the project was funded by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk, a major producer of one of these drugs.

Unfortunately, I think it is unlikely that over the next couple of decades any large countries who do not already have a functioning universal health care system will find the political will to develop one capable of reversing the trend toward obesity. Certainly, I don’t see it in the cards for this country.

On the other hand, I can foresee the availability and ease of administration for GLP-1 agonists and similar drugs improving over the near term. However, the cost and availability will continue to widen the separation between the haves and the have-nots, both globally and within each country. This will mean that the countries and population subgroups that already experience the bulk of the economic and health consequences of obesity will continue to shoulder an outsized burden of this “disease.”

It is unclear how much this widening of the fat-getting-fatter dynamic will add to the global and national political unrest that already seems to be tracking the effects of climate change. However, I can’t imaging it is going to be a calming or uniting force.

Narrowing our focus from an international to an individual resource-rich country such as the United States, let’s consider what the significant growth in availability and affordability of GLP-1 agonist drugs will mean. There will certainly be short-term improvements in the morbidity and mortality of some of the obesity related diseases. However, for other conditions it may take longer than two decades for us to notice an effect. While it is tempting to consider these declines as a financial boon for the country that already spends a high percentage of its GDP on healthcare. However, as the well-known Saturday Night Live pundit Roseanne Roseannadanna often observed, ”it’s always something ... if it’s not one thing it’s another.” There may be other non-obesity conditions that surge to fill the gap, leaving us still with a substantial financial burden for healthcare.

Patients taking GLP-1 agonists lose weight because they feel full and eat less food. While currently the number of patients taking these drugs is relatively small, the effect on this country’s food consumption is too small to calculate. However, let’s assume that 20 years from now half of the obese patients are taking appetite blunting medication. Using today’s statistics this means that 50 million adults will be eating significantly less food. Will the agriculturists have gradually adjusted to produce less food? Will this mean there is more food for the those experiencing “food insecurity”? I doubt it. Most food insecurity seems to be a problem of distribution and inequality, not supply.

Physicians now caution patients taking GLP-1 agonists to eat a healthy and balanced diet. When the drugs are more commonly available, will this caution be heeded by the majority? Will we see a population that may no longer be obese but nonetheless malnourished because of bad choices?

And, finally, in a similar vein, will previously obese individuals suddenly or gradually begin to be more physically active once the appetite blunting medicines have helped them lose weight? Here, I have my doubts. Of course, some leaner individuals begin to take advantage of their new body morphology. But, I fear that old sedentary habits will die very slowly for most, and not at all for many. We have built a vehicle-centric society in which being physically active requires making a conscious effort. Electronic devices and sedentary entertainment options are not going to disappear just because a significant percentage of the population is no longer obese.

So there you have it. I suspect that I am correct about which way some of the winds are blowing as the obesity becomes moves into its treatable “disease” phase. But, as always, I haven’t a clue which way the tide is running.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

TOPLINE:

People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
• Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
• They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
• Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
• Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
• After the initial low-calorie diet-induced weight loss, the placebo group regained weight, the exercise and liraglutide groups maintained weight loss, and the combination group lost additional weight.
• BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm²; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm²; P = .20).
• BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm²; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm²; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.

DISCLOSURES:

One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Cardiovascular Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear colleagues,

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

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

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

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

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

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

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

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear colleagues,

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

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

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

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

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

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

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

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear colleagues,

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

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

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

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Endoscopy

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

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

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

Courtesy of Thomas R. Hickey

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of Ryan C. Pouliot

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

The Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists On Endoscopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayo Clinic

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

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

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

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

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

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

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge Reduction in Episodes, Severity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tirzepatide Plus CPAP Are Best

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.