Obesity

DUBLIN – Ear acupuncture with stimulation beads leads to weight loss and a reduction in both waist circumference and body fat percentage, when combined with restricted food intake, in men with high levels of visceral fat and overweight/obesity.

Edward Olive/Dreamstime.com

Three months of auricular acupuncture stimulation and dietary restriction led to a mean weight loss of nearly 9 kg plus a drop in waist circumference of more than 10 cm.

According to the researchers, acupuncture beads, used in Japan to augment weight loss for more than 30 years, are thought to stimulate nerves and organs that regulate appetite, satiety, hunger, and food cravings.

Findings of the observational study were presented by Takahiro Fujimoto, MD, PhD, Clinic F, Tokyo, at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

Together with a prior study using the same intervention in women, Dr. Fujimoto and colleagues have now gathered data in more than 1,000 individuals, he said. “We wanted a method that was simple and noninvasive that would serve as a support to exercise and dietary therapy,” Dr. Fujimoto said in an interview.

“We believe there is an effect,” he asserted. “Acupuncture’s effect lies in stimulating the satiety center with benefits in helping individuals to control their food cravings and intake when reducing meals,” he said, pointing out that similar techniques have been used in patients undergoing withdrawal from drug addiction and in smoking cessation. He explained that acupuncture beads are believed to help individuals change their lifestyle habits, and added that “the relapse rate after 6 months is addressed in another paper, and it is very low.”

Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, head of school at the University of Leeds, England, and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity, commented on the findings. “There is no control group here receiving everything but the acupuncture,” he noted. “As such, it could be other elements of the intervention driving this [effect] including the act of keeping a food diary increasing awareness of one’s diet. A randomized controlled trial would be the next step.”

In women, the technique led to significantly more weight loss than in those who were untreated, and weight loss was maintained for 6 months after the end of treatment.

The researchers added that acupuncture stimulation with beads was a simpler method than traditional use of intradermal needles requiring expert acupuncturists. The stimulation is applied with 1.5-mm metal ear beads on 6 points of the outer ear (shen men, food pipe, upper stomach opening, stomach, lungs, and endocrine system) that correspond to meridian lines, and as such, restores the flow of qi by resolving any blockages or disruption. This may help with a variety of health conditions, according to the researchers. Placed on both ears, surgical tape was used to keep the beads in place to ensure participants continuously received uniform pressure on each of the six acupuncture points.

Dietary guidance was provided to participants to help reduce food intake by half, and nutritional supplements were given to compensate for any deficiencies. Participants attended twice-weekly clinic visits for bead sticking and diet progress monitoring. Body weight, body fat percentage, fat mass, lean mass, muscle mass, body mass index (BMI), and abdominal fat were assessed at the start and end of the study period.

“Since these tiny metal beads are attached to six points on the outer ear that stimulate nerves and organs which regulate appetite, satiety, and hunger, this type of acupuncture does not require complex knowledge or skill,” explained Dr. Fujimoto.

The results of the latest study, in men only, build on a prior study of more than 1,300 women who also received auricular acupuncture stimulation with beads as well as a halving of their food intake. In women, the weight loss program led to total body weight loss of 11.2% over 3 months.

At baseline, the 81 male participants, ages 21-78 years, had a mean BMI of 28.4 kg/m² and mean waist circumference of 98.4 cm. Body fat percentage was 28.2%.

After 3 months, participants lost a mean of 8.6 kg (P < .001), decreased waist circumference by a mean of 10.4 cm (P < .001), and lost a mean of 4.0% of total body fat (P < .001). Visceral fat levels also fell by 2.2 points (P < .001), from 15.2 points at baseline to 13.0 points after 3 months. (A healthy visceral fat rating is between 1 and 12 points.) BMI decreased by almost 3 kg/m² (from 28.4 at baseline to 25.5 at 3 months; P < .001).

Improvement in muscle-to-fat ratio was greater in men than women, whereas women had a greater decrease in percentage body fat than men.

“Whilst receiving ear acupuncture, the investigators asked participants to cut their food intake by half. It’s not unreasonable to expect that this major dietary change was the main reason participants lost weight,” remarked Graham Wheeler, PhD, statistical ambassador at the Royal Statistical Society, United Kingdom.

He also commented on the lack of a control group: “This study does not show us the impact of ear acupuncture on weight loss.”

Dr. Fujimoto and Dr. Halford have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wheeler is a statistical ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, is employed by GSK, and holds an honorary senior lecturer post at Imperial College London.

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

DUBLIN – Ear acupuncture with stimulation beads leads to weight loss and a reduction in both waist circumference and body fat percentage, when combined with restricted food intake, in men with high levels of visceral fat and overweight/obesity.

Edward Olive/Dreamstime.com

Three months of auricular acupuncture stimulation and dietary restriction led to a mean weight loss of nearly 9 kg plus a drop in waist circumference of more than 10 cm.

According to the researchers, acupuncture beads, used in Japan to augment weight loss for more than 30 years, are thought to stimulate nerves and organs that regulate appetite, satiety, hunger, and food cravings.

Findings of the observational study were presented by Takahiro Fujimoto, MD, PhD, Clinic F, Tokyo, at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

Together with a prior study using the same intervention in women, Dr. Fujimoto and colleagues have now gathered data in more than 1,000 individuals, he said. “We wanted a method that was simple and noninvasive that would serve as a support to exercise and dietary therapy,” Dr. Fujimoto said in an interview.

“We believe there is an effect,” he asserted. “Acupuncture’s effect lies in stimulating the satiety center with benefits in helping individuals to control their food cravings and intake when reducing meals,” he said, pointing out that similar techniques have been used in patients undergoing withdrawal from drug addiction and in smoking cessation. He explained that acupuncture beads are believed to help individuals change their lifestyle habits, and added that “the relapse rate after 6 months is addressed in another paper, and it is very low.”

Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, head of school at the University of Leeds, England, and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity, commented on the findings. “There is no control group here receiving everything but the acupuncture,” he noted. “As such, it could be other elements of the intervention driving this [effect] including the act of keeping a food diary increasing awareness of one’s diet. A randomized controlled trial would be the next step.”

In women, the technique led to significantly more weight loss than in those who were untreated, and weight loss was maintained for 6 months after the end of treatment.

The researchers added that acupuncture stimulation with beads was a simpler method than traditional use of intradermal needles requiring expert acupuncturists. The stimulation is applied with 1.5-mm metal ear beads on 6 points of the outer ear (shen men, food pipe, upper stomach opening, stomach, lungs, and endocrine system) that correspond to meridian lines, and as such, restores the flow of qi by resolving any blockages or disruption. This may help with a variety of health conditions, according to the researchers. Placed on both ears, surgical tape was used to keep the beads in place to ensure participants continuously received uniform pressure on each of the six acupuncture points.

Dietary guidance was provided to participants to help reduce food intake by half, and nutritional supplements were given to compensate for any deficiencies. Participants attended twice-weekly clinic visits for bead sticking and diet progress monitoring. Body weight, body fat percentage, fat mass, lean mass, muscle mass, body mass index (BMI), and abdominal fat were assessed at the start and end of the study period.

“Since these tiny metal beads are attached to six points on the outer ear that stimulate nerves and organs which regulate appetite, satiety, and hunger, this type of acupuncture does not require complex knowledge or skill,” explained Dr. Fujimoto.

The results of the latest study, in men only, build on a prior study of more than 1,300 women who also received auricular acupuncture stimulation with beads as well as a halving of their food intake. In women, the weight loss program led to total body weight loss of 11.2% over 3 months.

At baseline, the 81 male participants, ages 21-78 years, had a mean BMI of 28.4 kg/m² and mean waist circumference of 98.4 cm. Body fat percentage was 28.2%.

After 3 months, participants lost a mean of 8.6 kg (P < .001), decreased waist circumference by a mean of 10.4 cm (P < .001), and lost a mean of 4.0% of total body fat (P < .001). Visceral fat levels also fell by 2.2 points (P < .001), from 15.2 points at baseline to 13.0 points after 3 months. (A healthy visceral fat rating is between 1 and 12 points.) BMI decreased by almost 3 kg/m² (from 28.4 at baseline to 25.5 at 3 months; P < .001).

Improvement in muscle-to-fat ratio was greater in men than women, whereas women had a greater decrease in percentage body fat than men.

“Whilst receiving ear acupuncture, the investigators asked participants to cut their food intake by half. It’s not unreasonable to expect that this major dietary change was the main reason participants lost weight,” remarked Graham Wheeler, PhD, statistical ambassador at the Royal Statistical Society, United Kingdom.

He also commented on the lack of a control group: “This study does not show us the impact of ear acupuncture on weight loss.”

Dr. Fujimoto and Dr. Halford have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wheeler is a statistical ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, is employed by GSK, and holds an honorary senior lecturer post at Imperial College London.

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

DUBLIN – Ear acupuncture with stimulation beads leads to weight loss and a reduction in both waist circumference and body fat percentage, when combined with restricted food intake, in men with high levels of visceral fat and overweight/obesity.

Edward Olive/Dreamstime.com

Three months of auricular acupuncture stimulation and dietary restriction led to a mean weight loss of nearly 9 kg plus a drop in waist circumference of more than 10 cm.

According to the researchers, acupuncture beads, used in Japan to augment weight loss for more than 30 years, are thought to stimulate nerves and organs that regulate appetite, satiety, hunger, and food cravings.

Findings of the observational study were presented by Takahiro Fujimoto, MD, PhD, Clinic F, Tokyo, at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

Together with a prior study using the same intervention in women, Dr. Fujimoto and colleagues have now gathered data in more than 1,000 individuals, he said. “We wanted a method that was simple and noninvasive that would serve as a support to exercise and dietary therapy,” Dr. Fujimoto said in an interview.

“We believe there is an effect,” he asserted. “Acupuncture’s effect lies in stimulating the satiety center with benefits in helping individuals to control their food cravings and intake when reducing meals,” he said, pointing out that similar techniques have been used in patients undergoing withdrawal from drug addiction and in smoking cessation. He explained that acupuncture beads are believed to help individuals change their lifestyle habits, and added that “the relapse rate after 6 months is addressed in another paper, and it is very low.”

Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, head of school at the University of Leeds, England, and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity, commented on the findings. “There is no control group here receiving everything but the acupuncture,” he noted. “As such, it could be other elements of the intervention driving this [effect] including the act of keeping a food diary increasing awareness of one’s diet. A randomized controlled trial would be the next step.”

In women, the technique led to significantly more weight loss than in those who were untreated, and weight loss was maintained for 6 months after the end of treatment.

The researchers added that acupuncture stimulation with beads was a simpler method than traditional use of intradermal needles requiring expert acupuncturists. The stimulation is applied with 1.5-mm metal ear beads on 6 points of the outer ear (shen men, food pipe, upper stomach opening, stomach, lungs, and endocrine system) that correspond to meridian lines, and as such, restores the flow of qi by resolving any blockages or disruption. This may help with a variety of health conditions, according to the researchers. Placed on both ears, surgical tape was used to keep the beads in place to ensure participants continuously received uniform pressure on each of the six acupuncture points.

Dietary guidance was provided to participants to help reduce food intake by half, and nutritional supplements were given to compensate for any deficiencies. Participants attended twice-weekly clinic visits for bead sticking and diet progress monitoring. Body weight, body fat percentage, fat mass, lean mass, muscle mass, body mass index (BMI), and abdominal fat were assessed at the start and end of the study period.

“Since these tiny metal beads are attached to six points on the outer ear that stimulate nerves and organs which regulate appetite, satiety, and hunger, this type of acupuncture does not require complex knowledge or skill,” explained Dr. Fujimoto.

The results of the latest study, in men only, build on a prior study of more than 1,300 women who also received auricular acupuncture stimulation with beads as well as a halving of their food intake. In women, the weight loss program led to total body weight loss of 11.2% over 3 months.

At baseline, the 81 male participants, ages 21-78 years, had a mean BMI of 28.4 kg/m² and mean waist circumference of 98.4 cm. Body fat percentage was 28.2%.

After 3 months, participants lost a mean of 8.6 kg (P < .001), decreased waist circumference by a mean of 10.4 cm (P < .001), and lost a mean of 4.0% of total body fat (P < .001). Visceral fat levels also fell by 2.2 points (P < .001), from 15.2 points at baseline to 13.0 points after 3 months. (A healthy visceral fat rating is between 1 and 12 points.) BMI decreased by almost 3 kg/m² (from 28.4 at baseline to 25.5 at 3 months; P < .001).

Improvement in muscle-to-fat ratio was greater in men than women, whereas women had a greater decrease in percentage body fat than men.

“Whilst receiving ear acupuncture, the investigators asked participants to cut their food intake by half. It’s not unreasonable to expect that this major dietary change was the main reason participants lost weight,” remarked Graham Wheeler, PhD, statistical ambassador at the Royal Statistical Society, United Kingdom.

He also commented on the lack of a control group: “This study does not show us the impact of ear acupuncture on weight loss.”

Dr. Fujimoto and Dr. Halford have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wheeler is a statistical ambassador for the Royal Statistical Society, is employed by GSK, and holds an honorary senior lecturer post at Imperial College London.

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

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

Douglas Lunsford’s son Samuel has struggled with obesity all his life.

Just before turning 14, Samuel, now 25, took part in a program at Ohio-based Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Center for Healthy Weight and Nutrition. The program consisted of twice-weekly meetings with a nutritionist, including lessons in food portion size, what food does within the body, what foods can be used to supplement other foods, and similar topics, as well as physical exercise. 

Although the program was designed for youngsters with weight problems, Mr. Lunsford also took part. 

“They would exercise us and work us out,” he said.

Father and son did the program together for 2 years. Since then, Mr. Lunsford has advocated for youngsters with obesity. 

“Samuel’s struggle spurred us into action,” he said. 

Eventually, Mr. Lunsford helped create the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recently released Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Obesity. 
 

Helping create change

According to Sandra Hassink, MD, coauthor of the guideline and vice chair of the Clinical Practice Guideline Subcommittee on Obesity, the goal was to “help patients make changes in lifestyle, behaviors, or environment in a sustainable way and also to involve families in decision-making at every step of the way.”

The guideline recommends comprehensive obesity treatment that may include nutritional support, exercise, behavioral therapy, medication, and metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Ideally, a child would receive intense behavioral and lifestyle treatment, although this approach isn’t always available and might be challenging to deliver. The most effective treatments include at least 26 hours of face-to-face, family-based treatments, consisting of many different components and lasting 3-12 months.

The guideline suggests that doctors offer adolescents 12 and older medication to assist in weight loss, along with health, behavior, and lifestyle treatment, and that teens who have severe obesity should consider metabolic and bariatric surgery as they continue intense health behavior and lifestyle treatment. 

“We’re living at a time where we’ve watched obesity affect our children and adult population for 4 decades and, along with the risk of obesity, we’ve watched a rise in obesity; we’re seeing increases in illness that go along with obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, lipid diseases like high cholesterol, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Hassink said.

She explained that, as people gain weight, the cells in adipose (fatty) tissues start to malfunction and produce inflammatory chemicals that cause these illnesses. 

“So having extra adipose tissue is a risk,” she said. “As pediatricians, we measure body mass index [BMI] – which is calculated based on height and weight – as a way of seeing whether the child could be at risk for developing these dysfunctioning cells. If so, we screen them for prediabetes, lipid disease, or liver disease and other obesity-related comorbidities.”

In addition, “we’re concerned about the mental health of children with obesity because of the weight bias in our culture,” said Dr. Hassink. “A child gets stigmatized, and this takes the form of bullying and teasing, and leads to low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. So we know we have a host of physical problems we need to look out for, as well as the emotional and psychological effects of how our culture views things.”
 

Are parents ready for the new approach?

A new report from Harmony Healthcare IT, a data management firm that works with health data, looked at how parents regard their children’s obesity. The company surveyed more than 1,000 parents and found that one-tenth of respondents had children who were overweight or obese and over a quarter (26%) worried about their child’s weight.

Nearly 40% of parents would consider weight loss medication for their child if the child became obese at age 12, and about 16% would consider weight loss surgery. But most parents would not consider this surgery until their child was an average age of 15 rather than the AAP’s recommended age of 13.

Mr. Lunsford said that his son considered surgery and medication but was “never comfortable” with these approaches. 

This isn’t unusual, Dr. Hassink said. “Not every parent will think the same way, and their view will be based on their experience and what’s going on with their child.”

The guideline wasn’t designed to encourage every child to try medication or have surgery, she said. 

“But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician.”
 

Challenges to keeping healthy

It’s tough to stay healthy and not develop obesity in our modern environment, Dr. Hassink said. 

“There’s a lot of processed food, a lot of sugar in our foods, a lot of sedentary behavior, and a decrease in physical activity. In many communities, it’s hard for people to get healthy foods.”

Mr. Lunsford said that when his son was in his late teens and would go out with friends, they typically went to fast-food restaurants. 

“Sam would say ‘yes’ to these foods, although he knew they weren’t good for him, because he wanted to be like everyone else,” he said.

But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician, he said.

Harmony Health IT’s survey found that many parents say it is a struggle to get kids to eat healthy foods and get enough sleep. Although almost all respondents (83%) said they try to prepare healthy, home-cooked meals, 39% eat fast food at least once a week, mostly because parents are too tired to cook. 

Dr. Hassink said the COVID-19 pandemic also played a role.

“We knew that COVID would be hard for kids with obesity, and there might be weight gain because of the extra sedentary time and fewer sporting activities, and there was a high cost of food to families who are already economically strapped,” she said. 

In general, family support is essential, Dr. Hassink said. “Obesity treatment requires that the family be involved. The family is living in the same nutritional and activity environment as their child. Everyone has to be on board.”
 

Talking to kids about food and weight

The survey found that many parents struggle to talk about food and weight with their children. The AAP guideline notes that involving a health care professional can help. 

“If a parent or caregiver is concerned about a child’s weight, he or she can take the child to their pediatrician,” Dr. Hassink said. “The first thing the pediatrician will do is ask about the child’s overall health, review the family history – because obesity tends to run in families – and see if other conditions, like diabetes, also run in the family.” 

The pediatrician will do a physical examination that includes BMI and, if it’s high, other tests looking at blood sugar, lipids, and liver function may be performed. 

Ideally, the child will be prescribed intense lifestyle and behavioral treatment that will take the child’s and family’s nutrition into account, as well as physical activity and the amount of sleep the child is getting, which is sometimes tied to weight gain. If the child has disordered eating, such as binge eating disorder, they can be evaluated and treated for that.

Each child is seen as an individual with a particular set of needs. “One size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Hassink said. 
 

Providing emotional support for children with obesity 

Pediatricians can assess the child’s mental, emotional, and social well-being. “Children who are bullied or teased may need help working through that. Children experiencing depression may need treatment,” Dr. Hassink said.

Mr. Lunsford said Samuel was fortunate in that he rarely got taunted. 

“Part of the reason is that, although weight was an issue, he never allowed his weight to define him,” he said. “He was always an extroverted kind of kid, athletic, very outgoing and friendly, and being overweight was never part of his identity.” 

Mr. Lunsford encourages parents whose children are teased or bullied to create a “no-judgment” zone at home. 

“Let your kids know that their parents love them for who they are,” he said. “Emphasize that weight is a ‘number’ and health is a ‘lifestyle.’ Try to highlight the good things in their lives and encourage them to be as active as they can in the things that interest them.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Douglas Lunsford’s son Samuel has struggled with obesity all his life.

Just before turning 14, Samuel, now 25, took part in a program at Ohio-based Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Center for Healthy Weight and Nutrition. The program consisted of twice-weekly meetings with a nutritionist, including lessons in food portion size, what food does within the body, what foods can be used to supplement other foods, and similar topics, as well as physical exercise. 

Although the program was designed for youngsters with weight problems, Mr. Lunsford also took part. 

“They would exercise us and work us out,” he said.

Father and son did the program together for 2 years. Since then, Mr. Lunsford has advocated for youngsters with obesity. 

“Samuel’s struggle spurred us into action,” he said. 

Eventually, Mr. Lunsford helped create the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recently released Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Obesity. 
 

Helping create change

According to Sandra Hassink, MD, coauthor of the guideline and vice chair of the Clinical Practice Guideline Subcommittee on Obesity, the goal was to “help patients make changes in lifestyle, behaviors, or environment in a sustainable way and also to involve families in decision-making at every step of the way.”

The guideline recommends comprehensive obesity treatment that may include nutritional support, exercise, behavioral therapy, medication, and metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Ideally, a child would receive intense behavioral and lifestyle treatment, although this approach isn’t always available and might be challenging to deliver. The most effective treatments include at least 26 hours of face-to-face, family-based treatments, consisting of many different components and lasting 3-12 months.

The guideline suggests that doctors offer adolescents 12 and older medication to assist in weight loss, along with health, behavior, and lifestyle treatment, and that teens who have severe obesity should consider metabolic and bariatric surgery as they continue intense health behavior and lifestyle treatment. 

“We’re living at a time where we’ve watched obesity affect our children and adult population for 4 decades and, along with the risk of obesity, we’ve watched a rise in obesity; we’re seeing increases in illness that go along with obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, lipid diseases like high cholesterol, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Hassink said.

She explained that, as people gain weight, the cells in adipose (fatty) tissues start to malfunction and produce inflammatory chemicals that cause these illnesses. 

“So having extra adipose tissue is a risk,” she said. “As pediatricians, we measure body mass index [BMI] – which is calculated based on height and weight – as a way of seeing whether the child could be at risk for developing these dysfunctioning cells. If so, we screen them for prediabetes, lipid disease, or liver disease and other obesity-related comorbidities.”

In addition, “we’re concerned about the mental health of children with obesity because of the weight bias in our culture,” said Dr. Hassink. “A child gets stigmatized, and this takes the form of bullying and teasing, and leads to low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. So we know we have a host of physical problems we need to look out for, as well as the emotional and psychological effects of how our culture views things.”
 

Are parents ready for the new approach?

A new report from Harmony Healthcare IT, a data management firm that works with health data, looked at how parents regard their children’s obesity. The company surveyed more than 1,000 parents and found that one-tenth of respondents had children who were overweight or obese and over a quarter (26%) worried about their child’s weight.

Nearly 40% of parents would consider weight loss medication for their child if the child became obese at age 12, and about 16% would consider weight loss surgery. But most parents would not consider this surgery until their child was an average age of 15 rather than the AAP’s recommended age of 13.

Mr. Lunsford said that his son considered surgery and medication but was “never comfortable” with these approaches. 

This isn’t unusual, Dr. Hassink said. “Not every parent will think the same way, and their view will be based on their experience and what’s going on with their child.”

The guideline wasn’t designed to encourage every child to try medication or have surgery, she said. 

“But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician.”
 

Challenges to keeping healthy

It’s tough to stay healthy and not develop obesity in our modern environment, Dr. Hassink said. 

“There’s a lot of processed food, a lot of sugar in our foods, a lot of sedentary behavior, and a decrease in physical activity. In many communities, it’s hard for people to get healthy foods.”

Mr. Lunsford said that when his son was in his late teens and would go out with friends, they typically went to fast-food restaurants. 

“Sam would say ‘yes’ to these foods, although he knew they weren’t good for him, because he wanted to be like everyone else,” he said.

But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician, he said.

Harmony Health IT’s survey found that many parents say it is a struggle to get kids to eat healthy foods and get enough sleep. Although almost all respondents (83%) said they try to prepare healthy, home-cooked meals, 39% eat fast food at least once a week, mostly because parents are too tired to cook. 

Dr. Hassink said the COVID-19 pandemic also played a role.

“We knew that COVID would be hard for kids with obesity, and there might be weight gain because of the extra sedentary time and fewer sporting activities, and there was a high cost of food to families who are already economically strapped,” she said. 

In general, family support is essential, Dr. Hassink said. “Obesity treatment requires that the family be involved. The family is living in the same nutritional and activity environment as their child. Everyone has to be on board.”
 

Talking to kids about food and weight

The survey found that many parents struggle to talk about food and weight with their children. The AAP guideline notes that involving a health care professional can help. 

“If a parent or caregiver is concerned about a child’s weight, he or she can take the child to their pediatrician,” Dr. Hassink said. “The first thing the pediatrician will do is ask about the child’s overall health, review the family history – because obesity tends to run in families – and see if other conditions, like diabetes, also run in the family.” 

The pediatrician will do a physical examination that includes BMI and, if it’s high, other tests looking at blood sugar, lipids, and liver function may be performed. 

Ideally, the child will be prescribed intense lifestyle and behavioral treatment that will take the child’s and family’s nutrition into account, as well as physical activity and the amount of sleep the child is getting, which is sometimes tied to weight gain. If the child has disordered eating, such as binge eating disorder, they can be evaluated and treated for that.

Each child is seen as an individual with a particular set of needs. “One size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Hassink said. 
 

Providing emotional support for children with obesity 

Pediatricians can assess the child’s mental, emotional, and social well-being. “Children who are bullied or teased may need help working through that. Children experiencing depression may need treatment,” Dr. Hassink said.

Mr. Lunsford said Samuel was fortunate in that he rarely got taunted. 

“Part of the reason is that, although weight was an issue, he never allowed his weight to define him,” he said. “He was always an extroverted kind of kid, athletic, very outgoing and friendly, and being overweight was never part of his identity.” 

Mr. Lunsford encourages parents whose children are teased or bullied to create a “no-judgment” zone at home. 

“Let your kids know that their parents love them for who they are,” he said. “Emphasize that weight is a ‘number’ and health is a ‘lifestyle.’ Try to highlight the good things in their lives and encourage them to be as active as they can in the things that interest them.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Douglas Lunsford’s son Samuel has struggled with obesity all his life.

Just before turning 14, Samuel, now 25, took part in a program at Ohio-based Nationwide Children’s Hospital’s Center for Healthy Weight and Nutrition. The program consisted of twice-weekly meetings with a nutritionist, including lessons in food portion size, what food does within the body, what foods can be used to supplement other foods, and similar topics, as well as physical exercise. 

Although the program was designed for youngsters with weight problems, Mr. Lunsford also took part. 

“They would exercise us and work us out,” he said.

Father and son did the program together for 2 years. Since then, Mr. Lunsford has advocated for youngsters with obesity. 

“Samuel’s struggle spurred us into action,” he said. 

Eventually, Mr. Lunsford helped create the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recently released Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Obesity. 
 

Helping create change

According to Sandra Hassink, MD, coauthor of the guideline and vice chair of the Clinical Practice Guideline Subcommittee on Obesity, the goal was to “help patients make changes in lifestyle, behaviors, or environment in a sustainable way and also to involve families in decision-making at every step of the way.”

The guideline recommends comprehensive obesity treatment that may include nutritional support, exercise, behavioral therapy, medication, and metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Ideally, a child would receive intense behavioral and lifestyle treatment, although this approach isn’t always available and might be challenging to deliver. The most effective treatments include at least 26 hours of face-to-face, family-based treatments, consisting of many different components and lasting 3-12 months.

The guideline suggests that doctors offer adolescents 12 and older medication to assist in weight loss, along with health, behavior, and lifestyle treatment, and that teens who have severe obesity should consider metabolic and bariatric surgery as they continue intense health behavior and lifestyle treatment. 

“We’re living at a time where we’ve watched obesity affect our children and adult population for 4 decades and, along with the risk of obesity, we’ve watched a rise in obesity; we’re seeing increases in illness that go along with obesity, such as type 2 diabetes, lipid diseases like high cholesterol, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Hassink said.

She explained that, as people gain weight, the cells in adipose (fatty) tissues start to malfunction and produce inflammatory chemicals that cause these illnesses. 

“So having extra adipose tissue is a risk,” she said. “As pediatricians, we measure body mass index [BMI] – which is calculated based on height and weight – as a way of seeing whether the child could be at risk for developing these dysfunctioning cells. If so, we screen them for prediabetes, lipid disease, or liver disease and other obesity-related comorbidities.”

In addition, “we’re concerned about the mental health of children with obesity because of the weight bias in our culture,” said Dr. Hassink. “A child gets stigmatized, and this takes the form of bullying and teasing, and leads to low self-esteem, depression, and anxiety. So we know we have a host of physical problems we need to look out for, as well as the emotional and psychological effects of how our culture views things.”
 

Are parents ready for the new approach?

A new report from Harmony Healthcare IT, a data management firm that works with health data, looked at how parents regard their children’s obesity. The company surveyed more than 1,000 parents and found that one-tenth of respondents had children who were overweight or obese and over a quarter (26%) worried about their child’s weight.

Nearly 40% of parents would consider weight loss medication for their child if the child became obese at age 12, and about 16% would consider weight loss surgery. But most parents would not consider this surgery until their child was an average age of 15 rather than the AAP’s recommended age of 13.

Mr. Lunsford said that his son considered surgery and medication but was “never comfortable” with these approaches. 

This isn’t unusual, Dr. Hassink said. “Not every parent will think the same way, and their view will be based on their experience and what’s going on with their child.”

The guideline wasn’t designed to encourage every child to try medication or have surgery, she said. 

“But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician.”
 

Challenges to keeping healthy

It’s tough to stay healthy and not develop obesity in our modern environment, Dr. Hassink said. 

“There’s a lot of processed food, a lot of sugar in our foods, a lot of sedentary behavior, and a decrease in physical activity. In many communities, it’s hard for people to get healthy foods.”

Mr. Lunsford said that when his son was in his late teens and would go out with friends, they typically went to fast-food restaurants. 

“Sam would say ‘yes’ to these foods, although he knew they weren’t good for him, because he wanted to be like everyone else,” he said.

But parents now know that there are potentially helpful choices here that we didn’t have years ago, and those can be discussed with the child’s pediatrician, he said.

Harmony Health IT’s survey found that many parents say it is a struggle to get kids to eat healthy foods and get enough sleep. Although almost all respondents (83%) said they try to prepare healthy, home-cooked meals, 39% eat fast food at least once a week, mostly because parents are too tired to cook. 

Dr. Hassink said the COVID-19 pandemic also played a role.

“We knew that COVID would be hard for kids with obesity, and there might be weight gain because of the extra sedentary time and fewer sporting activities, and there was a high cost of food to families who are already economically strapped,” she said. 

In general, family support is essential, Dr. Hassink said. “Obesity treatment requires that the family be involved. The family is living in the same nutritional and activity environment as their child. Everyone has to be on board.”
 

Talking to kids about food and weight

The survey found that many parents struggle to talk about food and weight with their children. The AAP guideline notes that involving a health care professional can help. 

“If a parent or caregiver is concerned about a child’s weight, he or she can take the child to their pediatrician,” Dr. Hassink said. “The first thing the pediatrician will do is ask about the child’s overall health, review the family history – because obesity tends to run in families – and see if other conditions, like diabetes, also run in the family.” 

The pediatrician will do a physical examination that includes BMI and, if it’s high, other tests looking at blood sugar, lipids, and liver function may be performed. 

Ideally, the child will be prescribed intense lifestyle and behavioral treatment that will take the child’s and family’s nutrition into account, as well as physical activity and the amount of sleep the child is getting, which is sometimes tied to weight gain. If the child has disordered eating, such as binge eating disorder, they can be evaluated and treated for that.

Each child is seen as an individual with a particular set of needs. “One size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Hassink said. 
 

Providing emotional support for children with obesity 

Pediatricians can assess the child’s mental, emotional, and social well-being. “Children who are bullied or teased may need help working through that. Children experiencing depression may need treatment,” Dr. Hassink said.

Mr. Lunsford said Samuel was fortunate in that he rarely got taunted. 

“Part of the reason is that, although weight was an issue, he never allowed his weight to define him,” he said. “He was always an extroverted kind of kid, athletic, very outgoing and friendly, and being overweight was never part of his identity.” 

Mr. Lunsford encourages parents whose children are teased or bullied to create a “no-judgment” zone at home. 

“Let your kids know that their parents love them for who they are,” he said. “Emphasize that weight is a ‘number’ and health is a ‘lifestyle.’ Try to highlight the good things in their lives and encourage them to be as active as they can in the things that interest them.”

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

“Food gives me ‘hugs,’ ” Ms. S* said as her eyes lit up. Finally, after weeks of working together, she could articulate her complex relationship with food. She had been struggling to explain why she continued to eat when she was full or consumed foods she knew wouldn’t help her health.

Like millions of people struggling with their weight or the disease of obesity, Ms. S had tried multiple diets and programs but continued to return to unhelpful eating patterns. Ms. S was an emotional eater, and the pandemic only worsened her emotional eating. As a single professional forced to work from home during the pandemic, she became lonely. She went from working in a busy downtown office, training for half-marathons, and teaching live workout sessions to being alone daily. Her only “real” human interaction was when she ordered daily delivery meals of her favorite comfort foods. As a person with type 2 diabetes, she knew that her delivery habit was wrecking her health, but willpower wasn’t enough to make her stop.

Her psychologist referred her to our virtual integrative obesity practice to help her lose weight and find long-term solutions. Ms. S admitted that she knew what she was doing as an emotional eater. But like many emotional eaters, she didn’t know why or how to switch from emotional eating to eating based on her biological hunger signals. As a trained obesity expert and recovering emotional eater of 8 years, personally and professionally I can appreciate the challenges of emotional eating and how it can sabotage even the best weight loss plan. In this article, I will share facts and feelings that drive emotional eating. I aim to empower clinicians seeking to help patients with emotional eating.
 

Fact: Emotional eating isn’t all emotional

It’s important not to dismiss emotional eating as all emotion driven. Recall that hunger is hormonally regulated. There are two main hunger pathways: the homeostatic pathway and the hedonic pathway. The homeostatic pathway is our biological hunger pathway and is driven by the need for energy in calories. Conversely, hedonic eating is pleasure-driven and uses emotional stimuli to “bypass” the physical hunger/satisfaction signals.

Emotional eating falls under the hedonic pathway. As clinicians, the first step in helping a patient struggling with emotional eating is empathetically listening, then assessing for any physiologic causes.

Several factors can disrupt physiologic appetite regulation, such as sleep disturbances; high stress levels; and many medical conditions, including but not limited to obesity, diabetes, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Such factors as insulin resistance and inflammation are a common link in these conditions. Both contribute to the pathophysiology of the changes in appetite and can influence other hormones that lead to reduced satisfaction after eating. Furthermore, mental health conditions may disrupt levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which can also cause appetite changes.

These settings of physiologically disrupted appetite can trigger hedonic eating. But the relationship is complex. For example, one way to research hedonic eating is by using the Power of Food Scale. Functional MRI studies show that people with higher Power of Food Scale readings have more brain activity in the visual cortex when they see highly palatable foods. While more studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of this finding, it’s yet another indicator that “emotional” eating isn’t all emotional. It’s also physiologic.
 

Feelings: Patterns, personality, places, psychological factors

Physiology only explains part of emotional eating. Like Ms. S, emotional eaters have strong emotional connections to food and behavior patterns. Often, physiologic cues have been coupled with psychological habits.

For example, menses is a common physiologic trigger for stress-eating for many of my patients. Studies have shown that in addition to iron levels changing during menses, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous levels also change. Emotionally, the discomfort of “that time of the month” can lead to solace in comfort foods such as chocolate in different forms. But this isn’t surprising, as cacao and its derivative, chocolate, are rich in iron and other minerals. The chocolate is actually addressing a physical and emotional need. It can be helpful to point out this association to your patients. Suggest choosing a lower-sugar form of chocolate, such as dark chocolate, or even trying cacao nibs, while addressing any emotions.

But physiologic conditions and patterns aren’t the only emotional eating triggers. Places and psychological conditions can also trigger emotional eating.
 

Places and people 

Celebrations, vacations, proximity to certain restaurants, exposure to food marketing, and major life shifts can lead to increased hedonic eating. Helping patients recognize this connection opens the door to advance preparation for these situations.

Psychological conditions can be connected to emotional eating. It’s important to screen for mental health conditions and past traumas. For example, emotional eating could be a symptom of binge eating disorder, major depression, or generalized anxiety disorder. Childhood trauma is associated with disordered eating. The adverse childhood events quiz can be used clinically.

Emotional eating can lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and negative self-talk. It’s helpful to offer patients reassurance and encourage self-compassion. After all, it’s natural to eat. The goal isn’t to stop eating but to eat on the basis of physiologic needs.
 

Putting it together: Addressing the facts and feelings of emotional eating

1. Treat biological causes that impact physiologic hunger and trigger emotional eating.

2. Triggers: Address patterns, places/people, psychological events.

3. Transition to non-food rewards; the key to emotional eating is eating. While healthier substitutes can be a short-term solution for improving eating behaviors, ultimately, helping patients find non-food ways to address emotions is invaluable.

4. Stress management: Offer your patients ways to decrease stress levels through mindfulness and other techniques.

5. Professional support: Creating a multidisciplinary team is helpful, given the complexity of emotional eating. In addition to the primary care physician/clinician, other team members may include:

• Psychologist
• Psychiatrist
•  coach and/or certified wellness coaches
• Obesity specialist

Back to Ms. S

Ms. S is doing well. We started her on a GLP-1 agonist to address her underlying insulin resistance. Together we’ve found creative ways to satisfy her loneliness, such as volunteering and teaching virtual workout classes. Her emotional eating has decreased by over 60%, and we continue to discover new strategies to address her emotional eating triggers.

Conclusion

Despite being common, the impact of emotional eating is often minimized. With no DSM-5 criteria or ICD-11 code, it’s easy to dismiss emotional eating clinically. However, emotional eating is common and associated with weight gain.

In light of the obesity epidemic, this significance can’t be overlooked. Thankfully we have groundbreaking medications to address the homeostatic hunger pathway and physiologic drivers of emotional eating, but they’re not a substitute for addressing the psychosocial components of emotional eating.

As clinicians, we can have a meaningful impact on our patients’ lives beyond writing a prescription.

*Name/initial changed for privacy.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating.

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

“Food gives me ‘hugs,’ ” Ms. S* said as her eyes lit up. Finally, after weeks of working together, she could articulate her complex relationship with food. She had been struggling to explain why she continued to eat when she was full or consumed foods she knew wouldn’t help her health.

Like millions of people struggling with their weight or the disease of obesity, Ms. S had tried multiple diets and programs but continued to return to unhelpful eating patterns. Ms. S was an emotional eater, and the pandemic only worsened her emotional eating. As a single professional forced to work from home during the pandemic, she became lonely. She went from working in a busy downtown office, training for half-marathons, and teaching live workout sessions to being alone daily. Her only “real” human interaction was when she ordered daily delivery meals of her favorite comfort foods. As a person with type 2 diabetes, she knew that her delivery habit was wrecking her health, but willpower wasn’t enough to make her stop.

Her psychologist referred her to our virtual integrative obesity practice to help her lose weight and find long-term solutions. Ms. S admitted that she knew what she was doing as an emotional eater. But like many emotional eaters, she didn’t know why or how to switch from emotional eating to eating based on her biological hunger signals. As a trained obesity expert and recovering emotional eater of 8 years, personally and professionally I can appreciate the challenges of emotional eating and how it can sabotage even the best weight loss plan. In this article, I will share facts and feelings that drive emotional eating. I aim to empower clinicians seeking to help patients with emotional eating.
 

Fact: Emotional eating isn’t all emotional

It’s important not to dismiss emotional eating as all emotion driven. Recall that hunger is hormonally regulated. There are two main hunger pathways: the homeostatic pathway and the hedonic pathway. The homeostatic pathway is our biological hunger pathway and is driven by the need for energy in calories. Conversely, hedonic eating is pleasure-driven and uses emotional stimuli to “bypass” the physical hunger/satisfaction signals.

Emotional eating falls under the hedonic pathway. As clinicians, the first step in helping a patient struggling with emotional eating is empathetically listening, then assessing for any physiologic causes.

Several factors can disrupt physiologic appetite regulation, such as sleep disturbances; high stress levels; and many medical conditions, including but not limited to obesity, diabetes, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Such factors as insulin resistance and inflammation are a common link in these conditions. Both contribute to the pathophysiology of the changes in appetite and can influence other hormones that lead to reduced satisfaction after eating. Furthermore, mental health conditions may disrupt levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which can also cause appetite changes.

These settings of physiologically disrupted appetite can trigger hedonic eating. But the relationship is complex. For example, one way to research hedonic eating is by using the Power of Food Scale. Functional MRI studies show that people with higher Power of Food Scale readings have more brain activity in the visual cortex when they see highly palatable foods. While more studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of this finding, it’s yet another indicator that “emotional” eating isn’t all emotional. It’s also physiologic.
 

Feelings: Patterns, personality, places, psychological factors

Physiology only explains part of emotional eating. Like Ms. S, emotional eaters have strong emotional connections to food and behavior patterns. Often, physiologic cues have been coupled with psychological habits.

For example, menses is a common physiologic trigger for stress-eating for many of my patients. Studies have shown that in addition to iron levels changing during menses, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous levels also change. Emotionally, the discomfort of “that time of the month” can lead to solace in comfort foods such as chocolate in different forms. But this isn’t surprising, as cacao and its derivative, chocolate, are rich in iron and other minerals. The chocolate is actually addressing a physical and emotional need. It can be helpful to point out this association to your patients. Suggest choosing a lower-sugar form of chocolate, such as dark chocolate, or even trying cacao nibs, while addressing any emotions.

But physiologic conditions and patterns aren’t the only emotional eating triggers. Places and psychological conditions can also trigger emotional eating.
 

Places and people 

Celebrations, vacations, proximity to certain restaurants, exposure to food marketing, and major life shifts can lead to increased hedonic eating. Helping patients recognize this connection opens the door to advance preparation for these situations.

Psychological conditions can be connected to emotional eating. It’s important to screen for mental health conditions and past traumas. For example, emotional eating could be a symptom of binge eating disorder, major depression, or generalized anxiety disorder. Childhood trauma is associated with disordered eating. The adverse childhood events quiz can be used clinically.

Emotional eating can lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and negative self-talk. It’s helpful to offer patients reassurance and encourage self-compassion. After all, it’s natural to eat. The goal isn’t to stop eating but to eat on the basis of physiologic needs.
 

Putting it together: Addressing the facts and feelings of emotional eating

1. Treat biological causes that impact physiologic hunger and trigger emotional eating.

2. Triggers: Address patterns, places/people, psychological events.

3. Transition to non-food rewards; the key to emotional eating is eating. While healthier substitutes can be a short-term solution for improving eating behaviors, ultimately, helping patients find non-food ways to address emotions is invaluable.

4. Stress management: Offer your patients ways to decrease stress levels through mindfulness and other techniques.

5. Professional support: Creating a multidisciplinary team is helpful, given the complexity of emotional eating. In addition to the primary care physician/clinician, other team members may include:

• Psychologist
• Psychiatrist
•  coach and/or certified wellness coaches
• Obesity specialist

Back to Ms. S

Ms. S is doing well. We started her on a GLP-1 agonist to address her underlying insulin resistance. Together we’ve found creative ways to satisfy her loneliness, such as volunteering and teaching virtual workout classes. Her emotional eating has decreased by over 60%, and we continue to discover new strategies to address her emotional eating triggers.

Conclusion

Despite being common, the impact of emotional eating is often minimized. With no DSM-5 criteria or ICD-11 code, it’s easy to dismiss emotional eating clinically. However, emotional eating is common and associated with weight gain.

In light of the obesity epidemic, this significance can’t be overlooked. Thankfully we have groundbreaking medications to address the homeostatic hunger pathway and physiologic drivers of emotional eating, but they’re not a substitute for addressing the psychosocial components of emotional eating.

As clinicians, we can have a meaningful impact on our patients’ lives beyond writing a prescription.

*Name/initial changed for privacy.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating.

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

“Food gives me ‘hugs,’ ” Ms. S* said as her eyes lit up. Finally, after weeks of working together, she could articulate her complex relationship with food. She had been struggling to explain why she continued to eat when she was full or consumed foods she knew wouldn’t help her health.

Like millions of people struggling with their weight or the disease of obesity, Ms. S had tried multiple diets and programs but continued to return to unhelpful eating patterns. Ms. S was an emotional eater, and the pandemic only worsened her emotional eating. As a single professional forced to work from home during the pandemic, she became lonely. She went from working in a busy downtown office, training for half-marathons, and teaching live workout sessions to being alone daily. Her only “real” human interaction was when she ordered daily delivery meals of her favorite comfort foods. As a person with type 2 diabetes, she knew that her delivery habit was wrecking her health, but willpower wasn’t enough to make her stop.

Her psychologist referred her to our virtual integrative obesity practice to help her lose weight and find long-term solutions. Ms. S admitted that she knew what she was doing as an emotional eater. But like many emotional eaters, she didn’t know why or how to switch from emotional eating to eating based on her biological hunger signals. As a trained obesity expert and recovering emotional eater of 8 years, personally and professionally I can appreciate the challenges of emotional eating and how it can sabotage even the best weight loss plan. In this article, I will share facts and feelings that drive emotional eating. I aim to empower clinicians seeking to help patients with emotional eating.
 

Fact: Emotional eating isn’t all emotional

It’s important not to dismiss emotional eating as all emotion driven. Recall that hunger is hormonally regulated. There are two main hunger pathways: the homeostatic pathway and the hedonic pathway. The homeostatic pathway is our biological hunger pathway and is driven by the need for energy in calories. Conversely, hedonic eating is pleasure-driven and uses emotional stimuli to “bypass” the physical hunger/satisfaction signals.

Emotional eating falls under the hedonic pathway. As clinicians, the first step in helping a patient struggling with emotional eating is empathetically listening, then assessing for any physiologic causes.

Several factors can disrupt physiologic appetite regulation, such as sleep disturbances; high stress levels; and many medical conditions, including but not limited to obesity, diabetes, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Such factors as insulin resistance and inflammation are a common link in these conditions. Both contribute to the pathophysiology of the changes in appetite and can influence other hormones that lead to reduced satisfaction after eating. Furthermore, mental health conditions may disrupt levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which can also cause appetite changes.

These settings of physiologically disrupted appetite can trigger hedonic eating. But the relationship is complex. For example, one way to research hedonic eating is by using the Power of Food Scale. Functional MRI studies show that people with higher Power of Food Scale readings have more brain activity in the visual cortex when they see highly palatable foods. While more studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of this finding, it’s yet another indicator that “emotional” eating isn’t all emotional. It’s also physiologic.
 

Feelings: Patterns, personality, places, psychological factors

Physiology only explains part of emotional eating. Like Ms. S, emotional eaters have strong emotional connections to food and behavior patterns. Often, physiologic cues have been coupled with psychological habits.

For example, menses is a common physiologic trigger for stress-eating for many of my patients. Studies have shown that in addition to iron levels changing during menses, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous levels also change. Emotionally, the discomfort of “that time of the month” can lead to solace in comfort foods such as chocolate in different forms. But this isn’t surprising, as cacao and its derivative, chocolate, are rich in iron and other minerals. The chocolate is actually addressing a physical and emotional need. It can be helpful to point out this association to your patients. Suggest choosing a lower-sugar form of chocolate, such as dark chocolate, or even trying cacao nibs, while addressing any emotions.

But physiologic conditions and patterns aren’t the only emotional eating triggers. Places and psychological conditions can also trigger emotional eating.
 

Places and people 

Celebrations, vacations, proximity to certain restaurants, exposure to food marketing, and major life shifts can lead to increased hedonic eating. Helping patients recognize this connection opens the door to advance preparation for these situations.

Psychological conditions can be connected to emotional eating. It’s important to screen for mental health conditions and past traumas. For example, emotional eating could be a symptom of binge eating disorder, major depression, or generalized anxiety disorder. Childhood trauma is associated with disordered eating. The adverse childhood events quiz can be used clinically.

Emotional eating can lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and negative self-talk. It’s helpful to offer patients reassurance and encourage self-compassion. After all, it’s natural to eat. The goal isn’t to stop eating but to eat on the basis of physiologic needs.
 

Putting it together: Addressing the facts and feelings of emotional eating

1. Treat biological causes that impact physiologic hunger and trigger emotional eating.

2. Triggers: Address patterns, places/people, psychological events.

3. Transition to non-food rewards; the key to emotional eating is eating. While healthier substitutes can be a short-term solution for improving eating behaviors, ultimately, helping patients find non-food ways to address emotions is invaluable.

4. Stress management: Offer your patients ways to decrease stress levels through mindfulness and other techniques.

5. Professional support: Creating a multidisciplinary team is helpful, given the complexity of emotional eating. In addition to the primary care physician/clinician, other team members may include:

• Psychologist
• Psychiatrist
•  coach and/or certified wellness coaches
• Obesity specialist

Back to Ms. S

Ms. S is doing well. We started her on a GLP-1 agonist to address her underlying insulin resistance. Together we’ve found creative ways to satisfy her loneliness, such as volunteering and teaching virtual workout classes. Her emotional eating has decreased by over 60%, and we continue to discover new strategies to address her emotional eating triggers.

Conclusion

Despite being common, the impact of emotional eating is often minimized. With no DSM-5 criteria or ICD-11 code, it’s easy to dismiss emotional eating clinically. However, emotional eating is common and associated with weight gain.

In light of the obesity epidemic, this significance can’t be overlooked. Thankfully we have groundbreaking medications to address the homeostatic hunger pathway and physiologic drivers of emotional eating, but they’re not a substitute for addressing the psychosocial components of emotional eating.

As clinicians, we can have a meaningful impact on our patients’ lives beyond writing a prescription.

*Name/initial changed for privacy.

Sylvia Gonsahn-Bollie, MD, DipABOM, is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

Higher body mass index and changes in BMI over time may increase a person’s risk for gastrointestinal cancer, according to new data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

The researchers found that being overweight or obese in early and middle adulthood was associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and noncolorectal GI cancers. Maintaining or increasing BMI over time among overweight or obese individuals was also associated with an increased GI cancer risk.

Aspirin use did not significantly modify these associations, suggesting that aspirin may not be as effective for cancer prevention among overweight or obese individuals.

The results provide “relatively consistent messaging that overweight or obesity from early to later adulthood as well as BMI increases throughout adulthood were associated with increased risk of GI cancers, especially CRC,” the authors of an editorial accompanying the study wrote.

These “important findings highlight the unmet need to identify the critical time window linking adiposity and GI cancer,” said editorialists Mengyao Shi, MBBS, MPD, and Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis.

The analysis was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

A growing body of evidence has revealed a strong association between obesity and GI cancers, with chronic inflammation being a likely cause. As rates of overweight and obesity continue to grow, better understanding of the association between obesity and cancer has become increasingly important.

In the analysis, Holli A. Loomans-Kropp, PhD, MPH, with Ohio State University, Columbus, and Asad Umar, PhD, DVM, with the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., explored associations between BMI in early adulthood (age 20), middle adulthood (age 50) and later adulthood (age 55 and over) and GI cancer risk in 135,161 adults from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

BMI was determined using self-reported height and weight at each age time point. The median age at enrollment was 62 years, and 50% of participants were women. Overweight BMI was 25.0-29.9 kg/m² and obese BMI was 30 or higher.

During as many as 21 years of follow-up, 2,803 individuals developed CRC and 2,285 developed non-CRC GI cancers (esophageal, liver, gastric, and pancreatic).

Overweight BMI in early, middle, and later adulthood was associated with an increased risk of CRC (hazard ratio, 1.23 for early and middle years; HR, 1.21 for later years). Obese BMI in middle and later adulthood was also associated with increased risk of CRC (HR, 1.55 and 1.39, respectively). 

The authors observed similar associations between BMI in middle and later adulthood and overall GI and non-CRC GI risk.

“When modeled continuously, we observed 2%-4% increased risk of both CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer with each 1-unit increase in BMI across all time points,” the researchers said.

Their data also suggest that BMI over time may be associated with GI cancer risk. Adults who exhibited no change in overweight or obese BMIs between early and later adulthood and those who exhibited increases in BMI from underweight or normal in early adulthood to overweight or obese BMI in later adulthood had a significantly higher risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer.

Among frequent aspirin users, those with overweight or obese BMIs in early, middle, and later adulthood still had an increased risk for CRC and noncolorectal GI cancer (hazard ratios, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.43, respectively).

The finding that regular weekly aspirin use did not modify GI cancer risk suggests that obesity may alter the cancer-preventive effect of aspirin, the researchers suggested. Individuals with obesity may need to increase aspirin frequency or dosage to see an effect, but upping the dose comes with its own risks, including GI bleeding.

Overall, until now, most epidemiologic studies have examined BMI at one time point, “missing the opportunity to delineate the contribution of adiposity throughout the life course,” Dr. Shi and Dr. Cao wrote.

“As we continue to investigate precision-based interventions to intercept the link between obesity and cancer, it is imperative to reiterate the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and lifestyle from an early age and incorporate it widely into cancer prevention strategies at all levels with immediate implementation,” the editorialists concluded.

This study was supported in part by funds from Ohio State University and the NIH. The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cao has received personal fees from Geneoscopy for consulting.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

In one of the first studies to examine this phenomenon, metabolically unhealthy obesity is associated with an increased risk, around 1.5-fold higher, of any obesity-related cancer, and an even higher risk, two- to threefold higher, for specific cancers, such as endometrial, liver, and renal cell cancers, compared with metabolically healthy normal weight.

Even in people with so-called “metabolically healthy” obesity, the risk for overall obesity-related cancer is increased, compared with normal-weight, metabolically healthy individuals; however, the associations here are weaker than in people with metabolically unhealthy obesity.

“The type of metabolic obesity phenotype is important when assessing obesity-related cancer risk,” lead researcher Ming Sun, PhD, from Lund University, Malmö, Sweden, said in an interview. “In general, metabolic aberrations further increased the obesity-induced cancer risk, suggesting that obesity and metabolic aberrations are useful targets for prevention.”

“This synergy means that when obesity and metabolic unhealth occur together, that’s particularly bad,” added Tanja Stocks, PhD, senior author, also of Lund University.

“But the data also highlight that even obesity and overweight alone comprise an increased risk of cancer,” Dr. Stocks noted.

Dr. Sun said the findings have important public health implications, suggesting that “a significant number of cancer cases could potentially be prevented by targeting the coexistence of metabolic problems and obesity, in particular for obesity-related cancers among men.”

The results will be presented as a poster by Dr. Sun at the European Congress on Obesity 2023, being held in Dublin, and have been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
 

Metabolically unhealthy obesity worst for cancer risks

Andrew G. Renehan, PhD, FRCS, professor of cancer studies and surgery, University of Manchester, England, welcomed the new work, saying it addresses the issue with very large study numbers. “[It] nicely demonstrates that there are clear examples where metabolically unhealthy overweight and obese phenotypes have increased cancer risk relative to [metabolically] healthy overweight and obese phenotypes,” he said.

“There is a clear need for clinically based research addressing these hypotheses ... but these studies will additionally need to factor in other dimensions such as the selection of treatment for metabolic aberrations, both medical and surgical, and the consequent metabolic control resulting from these interventions,” Dr. Renehan observed.

Vibhu Chittajallu, MD, a gastroenterologist based at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, said it was beneficial to see another study further validating the association of obesity with the development of obesity-associated cancers.

“This is an interesting study [because it focuses] on the role of metabolic syndrome in obesity and how it affects the risk of development of obesity-associated cancers,” he said in an interview.

“I believe that the results of this study further strengthen the need for improved management of obesity and metabolic syndrome to reduce the risk of obesity-associated cancer formation that plays a role in preventable and premature deaths in adult patients with obesity.”
 

Synergy between metabolic aberrations and obesity, and cancer risk

Dr. Sun and colleagues note that obesity is an established risk factor for several cancers. It is often accompanied by metabolic aberrations, which have been a commonly proposed mechanism to link obesity with cancer. During the last decade, obesity with or without metabolic aberrations – commonly termed “metabolically unhealthy” or “healthy obesity” – has been extensively investigated in the cardiovascular field; however, studies regarding cancer are limited.

According to Dr. Sun, this new study is the first to look at the synergistic effect of unhealthy metabolism and body mass index – the latter was further categorized as normal weight (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI < 30) and obesity (BMI ≤ 30) – and the association with cancer risk, both overall and in relation to site-specific cancers.

Data were drawn from 797,193 European individuals (in Norway, Sweden, and Austria), of whom 23,630 developed an obesity-related cancer during the follow-up period. A metabolic score comprising mid-blood pressure, plasma glucose, and triglycerides was used to provide a measure of healthy or unhealthy metabolic status. Relative risks (hazard ratios) for overall and site-specific cancers were determined. Comparisons were made with metabolically healthy people of normal weight (effectively controls).

When different metabolic scores and BMIs were combined, participants fell into six categories: metabolically unhealthy obesity (6.8% of participants); metabolically healthy obesity (3.4%), metabolically unhealthy overweight (15.4%), metabolically healthy overweight (19.8%), metabolically unhealthy normal weight (12.5%), and metabolically healthy normal weight (42.0%).

Metabolically unhealthy women with obesity had a hazard ratio of 1.43 for overall obesity-related cancers, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight. Of particular note were risks of two cancer types in women with metabolically unhealthy obesity: renal cancer, with an HR of 2.43, and endometrial cancer, with an HR of 3.0, compared with controls.

Even in metabolically healthy women with obesity, compared with metabolically healthy women of normal weight, there was an increased risk of endometrial cancer, with an HR of 2.36.

“If you look at individual cancers, in particular endometrial cancer, this seems to be very much driven by obesity and not so much by the metabolic factor,” remarked Dr. Stocks.

In males, compared with metabolically healthy men of normal weight, metabolically unhealthy men with obesity had an overall obesity-related cancer risk HR of 1.91. Specifically, the risk of renal cell cancer was more than doubled, with an HR of 2.59. The HR for colon cancer was 1.85, and that for rectal cancer and pancreatic cancer was similar, both having HRs of 1.32.

Again, risk was lower in metabolically healthy men with obesity, although still higher than for metabolically healthy normal-weight men.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bariatric surgery for obesity is associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer, new data suggest.

In a matched cohort study of more than 69,000 Canadian women, risk for incident breast cancer at 1 year was 40% higher among women who had not undergone bariatric surgery, compared with those who had. The risk remained elevated through 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were “definitely a bit surprising,” study author Aristithes G. Doumouras, MD, MPH, assistant professor of surgery at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview. “The patients that underwent bariatric surgery had better cancer outcomes than patients who weighed less than they did, so it showed that there was more at play than just weight loss. This effect was durable [and] shows how powerful the surgery is, [as well as] the fact that we haven’t even explored all of its effects.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protective association

To determine whether there is a residual risk for breast cancer following bariatric surgery for obesity, the investigators analyzed clinical and administrative data collected between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario. They retrospectively matched women with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with women without a history of bariatric surgery. Participants were matched by age and breast cancer screening status. Covariates included diabetes status, neighborhood income quintile, and measures of health care use. The population included 69,260 women (mean age, 45 years).

Among participants who underwent bariatric surgery for obesity, baseline body mass index was greater than 35 for those with related comorbid conditions, and BMI was greater than 40 for those without comorbid conditions. The investigators categorized nonsurgical control patients in accordance with the following four BMI categories: less than 25, 25-29, 30-34, and greater than or equal to 35. Each control group, as well as the surgical group, included 13,852 women.

Participants in the surgical group were followed for 5 years after bariatric surgery. Those in the nonsurgical group were followed for 5 years after the index date (that is, the date of BMI measurement).

In the overall population, 659 cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in the overall population (0.95%) during the study period. This total included 103 (0.74%) cancers in the surgical cohort; 128 (0.92%) in the group with BMI less than 25; 143 (1.03%) among those with BMI 25-29; 150 (1.08%) in the group with BMI 30-34; and 135 (0.97%) among those with BMI greater than or equal to 35.

Most cancers were stage I. There were 65 cases among those with BMI less than 25; 76 for those with BMI of 25-29; 65 for BMI of 30-34; 67 for BMI greater than or equal to 35, and 60 for the surgery group.

Most tumors were of medium grade and were estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, and ERBB2 negative. No significant differences were observed across the groups for stage, grade, or hormone status.

There was an increased hazard for incident breast cancer in the nonsurgical group, compared with the postsurgical group after washout periods of 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.40), 2 years (HR, 1.31), and 5 years (HR, 1.38).

In a comparison of the postsurgical cohort with the nonsurgical cohort with BMI less than 25, the hazard of incident breast cancer was not significantly different for any of the washout periods, but there was a reduced hazard for incident breast cancer among postsurgical patients than among nonsurgical patients in all high BMI categories (BMI ≥ 25).

“Taken together, these results demonstrate that the protective association between substantial weight loss via bariatric surgery and breast cancer risk is sustained after 5 years following surgery and that it is associated with a baseline risk similar to that of women with BMI less than 25,” the investigators write.

Nevertheless, Dr. Doumouras said “the interaction between the surgery and individuals is poorly studied, and this level of personalized medicine is simply not there yet. We are working on developing a prospective cohort that has genetic, protein, and microbiome [data] to help answer these questions.”

There are not enough women in subpopulations such as BRCA carriers to study at this point, he added. “This is where more patients and time will really help the research process.”
 

A universal benefit?

“Although these findings are important overall for the general population at risk for breast cancer, we raise an important caveat: The benefit of surgical weight loss may not be universal,” write Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH, surgical innovation editor for JAMA Surgery, and Melissa L. Pilewskie, MD, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying commentary.

“In addition to lifestyle factors, several nonmodifiable risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition, strong family history, personal history of a high-risk breast lesion, or history of chest wall radiation, impart significant elevation in risk, and the data remain mixed on the impact of weight loss for individuals in these high-risk cohorts,” they add.

“Further study to elucidate the underlying mechanism associated with obesity, weight loss, and breast cancer risk should help guide strategies for risk reduction that are specific to unique high-risk cohorts, because modifiable risk factors may not portend the same benefit among all groups.”

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Edge, MD, breast surgeon and vice president for system quality and outcomes at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., said, “The importance of this study is that it shows that weight loss in midlife can reduce breast cancer risk back to or even below the risk of similar people who were not obese. This has major implications for counseling women.”

The investigators did not have information on the extent of weight loss with surgery or on which participants maintained the lower weight, Dr. Edge noted; “However, overall, most people who have weight reduction surgery have major weight loss.”

At this point, he said, “we can now tell women with obesity that in addition to the many other advantages of weight loss, their risk of getting breast cancer will also be reduced.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Bariatric Registry and ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Doumouras, Dr. Dimick, Dr. Pilewskie, and Dr. Edge reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, overweight and obesity were overall predictors of lower disease-free survival, but body mass index had no apparent association with the effect of extended endocrine therapy on disease-free survival, new data suggest.

Obesity is a well-known risk factor for breast cancer in postmenopausal women and has been associated with adverse prognosis, said Senna W.M. Lammers, MD, of Maastricht (the Netherlands) University during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Breast Cancer annual congress. In addition, some studies suggest that patients with higher body mass index (BMI) experience reduced benefits from endocrine therapy, she said.

Dr. Lammers and colleagues conducted a study to determine the prognostic and predictive effect of BMI on disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer who were treated with extended endocrine therapy.

The study population included participants in the randomized, phase III DATA trial, which evaluated the use of 6 years vs. 3 years of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer who were disease-free after 2-3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy.

Patients were categorized based on BMI as having normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), or obese (30 kg/m² or higher). The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS); the median follow-up period was 13.1 years.

DFS for patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity was 66.2%, 59.5%, and 52.4%, with a P value of less than .001 for the trend, Dr. Lammers said. “These results were confirmed in multivariable analysis,” she said. Overall, patients with overweight and obesity had a worse DFS when compared with patients with normal weight (hazard ratio, 1.16; P = .10, for patients with overweight and HR, 1.26; P = .03 for patients with obesity).

“Next, we aimed to determine whether the prognostic effect of BMI differed by age,” Dr. Lammers said.

In women younger than 60 years, overweight and obesity were significantly associated with worse DFS (HR, 1.29; P = .05 and HR 1.83, P less than .001, respectively). However, this effect was not observed in women aged 60 years and older.

The researchers also examined the treatment effect of extended anastrozole on adapted DFS by weight, and found no significant differences among patients with normal weight, overweight, and obesity (HR, 1.00; HR, 0.74; and HR, 0.97, respectively), said Dr. Lammers.

In the question and answer session, Dr. Lammers was asked about possible explanations for the difference in DFS by age. Potential explanations include possible survival bias “as only the healthier [patients with obesity] survive to old age,” she said. Other potential explanations are biological, such as the potentially higher levels of bone density in older [patients with obesity], she said.

When asked about additional clinical implications, Dr. Lammers emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy BMI for breast cancer patients of all ages. Other research areas might involve the use of lifestyle interventions, although these are challenging to implement, she noted.
 

Data draw attention to quality of life and lifestyle factors

The need to “look at drug development with new eyes” is particularly important when reviewing patient-reported outcomes, said Otto Metzger, MD, of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who served as the discussant for the session.

Dr. Metzger brought up the association between age and the effect of BMI on DFS, specifically.

Based on data from multiple studies and meta-analyses, “I do believe that obesity does play a role in prognosis,” he said, but the question is how long will researchers continue to simply record data without acting to add lifestyle interventions while also trying to develop new drugs, he said. Although convincing patients to make lifestyle changes remains a challenge, patients are often more motivated to make such changes after a cancer diagnosis, Dr. Metzger noted.

“I am a firm believer in the use of digital therapeutics in the context of clinical trials,” said Dr. Metzger. Digital technology offers great potential to educate patients on [adverse effects] and also to improve treatment adherence and quality of life, he concluded.

The study was supported by AstraZeneca, and Dr. Lammers disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. Dr. Metzger disclosed receiving research funding to his institution from Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, and Sanofi, and serving as an adviser/consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, Oncoclinicas, Resilience, and Roche.

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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

CHICAGO – Antiobesity medications and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are popular strategies for weight loss on their own. Now researchers are looking at what happens when you combine them.

In a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), they found ESG followed by an antiobesity medication led to more total weight loss than ESG alone.

Starting medication within 6 months of ESG was more ideal than other timing intervals. Initiating medical therapy more than 6 months before ESG was associated with less weight loss.

In the single-center, retrospective study, 224 patients were enrolled, of whom 34% were on monotherapy (ESG alone), 31% had combination therapy (medication prescribed within 6 months prior to or after ESG), and 35% had sequential therapy (medication more than 6 months prior to or after ESG).

Most patients were female, ranging from 74% to 95% of each group, and baseline BMI ranged from a mean 37.5 kg/m² to 40.1 kg/m².

The medications involved in the study were phentermine, phentermine/topiramate extended release (Qsymia), orlistat (Xenical, Alli), bupropion/naltrexone ER (Contrave), or the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza) or semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus). Of the patients who underwent combination therapy, 30% were prescribed a regimen that included a GLP-1RA. Of the patients who underwent sequential therapy, 81% were prescribed a medication first and 19% underwent ESG first.

At 1 year, the greatest total weight loss was a mean 23.7% with the combination of ESG and a GLP-1RA. Total weight loss was 18% with ESG plus a non–GLP-1RA medication. ESG alone led to 17.3%. Sequential therapy that began with ESG yielded 14.7% total weight loss, whereas sequential therapy that began with medication first resulted in 12% weight loss.

Different study, similar result

In a second study, also presented at DDW 2023, investigators looked at timing of liraglutide for weight loss in a randomized controlled trial. They found that administration of GLP-1RA right after transoral outlet reduction endoscopy (TORe) in people with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass extended weight loss longer than a placebo injection. This strategy was also favorable versus waiting to give liraglutide 1 year later.

The researchers randomly assigned 51 people to get weekly subcutaneous liraglutide injections following TORe for 12 months, then placebo injections for 12 months. They assigned 58 patients to receive weekly placebo injections following TORe for 12 months, then liraglutide injections for 12 months.

At 12 months following the procedure, total body weight loss (TBWL) among participants receiving liraglutide was about 22%, compared with about 14% among patients receiving placebo. At 24 months following the procedure (12 months after crossover), TBWL among patients in the liraglutide-first group was almost 35%, compared with about 24% in the placebo-first/liraglutide-second group.

There was a durable effect associated with liraglutide even after switching to placebo, said Ali Lahooti, lead study author and second-year medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

“There did seem to be a better benefit of starting on it for the first year and then stopping it,” Dr. Austin noted.

These two studies come at a time when the debate over the timing of different obesity interventions continues. Some experts believe weight loss medications can help with the rebound in weight that some people experience months after bariatric surgery, for example.
 

‘Wave of the future’

The study by Dr. Jirapinyo and colleagues is “really exciting and interesting,” said Linda S. Lee, MD, medical director of endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, when asked to comment.

Medication begun within 6 months of the endoscopic procedure “led to superior outcomes, compared to just endoscopy alone,” Dr. Lee said. “I think that’s really the wave of the future as far as treating patients with obesity issues. We clearly know that diet and exercise alone for most people is not good enough. Of course, we have surgery, but we also realize that with surgery sometimes the weight starts to creep back up over time.”

Dr. Lee noted that the study was limited because it was retrospective. Ideally, it would be good if future, prospective research randomly assigns people to endoscopy alone or endoscopy plus medication.

Dr. Lee also noted there is a limited number of bariatric endoscopists. By the time people with obesity get to a specialist, they’ve likely tried diet and exercise and “probably have seen all the commercials for these different medications. I think the reality is that most people will ask their primary care physicians about antiobesity medication.

“From my point of view, as long as the medicine is safe and not harming them, then let’s do both of them together,” Dr. Lee added.

Dr. Lee also mentioned another study (Abstract Mo1898) presented at DDW 2023 that showed total weight loss with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty was durable over 10 years. Follow-up was with only seven patients, however.

Larger numbers are needed to confirm the finding, but it’s “exciting,” she said.

Dr. Jirapinyo receives grant/research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Fractyl, and USGI Medical, and is a consultant for ERBE, GI Dynamics, and Spatz Medical. Dr. Lahooti, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Lee reported no relevant financial relationships.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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