Obesity

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.

In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.

As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.

However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.

A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.

Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
 

Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?

The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.

In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.

The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”

Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.

It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.

We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.

To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.

Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.

In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.

As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.

However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.

A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.

Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
 

Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?

The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.

In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.

The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”

Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.

It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.

We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.

To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.

Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.

In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.

As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.

However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.

A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.

Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
 

Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?

The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.

In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.

The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”

Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.

It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.

We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.

To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.

Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.

Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.

In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.

Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.

Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.

When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.

These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.

The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.

Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.

Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.

These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.

I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.

Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps. When our rep explained the potential for weight loss in patients without diabetes, I tried Ozempic off label. Within the first 2 weeks, I noticed a 3- to- 5-lb weight loss.

When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.

With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.

The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).

Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.

Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.

Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.

For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.

As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.

Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.

“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.

The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.

To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.

The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.

They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.

The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.

The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.

Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”

Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”

Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”

He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.

The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.

These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.

“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.  
 

Upward trends in both diabetes types

Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.

The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.

The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.

For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).

Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).

The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.

And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes. 

Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.

Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.

The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”

“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.

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

New research may help physicians avoid the widespread problem of antipsychotic-induced weight gain and changes in metabolic parameters in patients with acute schizophrenia.

In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.

Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.  

“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.

“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Balancing risks and benefits

Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note

The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.

To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.

Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.

The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.

The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.

They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.

The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
 

Shared decision-making

Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.

The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”

With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.

For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.

Metabolically neutral

Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.

These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.

In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.

With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.

Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.

Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.

Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.

For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.

The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.

The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
 

Lowest effective dose

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”

Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.

“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.

Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.

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

New research may help physicians avoid the widespread problem of antipsychotic-induced weight gain and changes in metabolic parameters in patients with acute schizophrenia.

In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.

Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.  

“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.

“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Balancing risks and benefits

Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note

The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.

To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.

Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.

The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.

The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.

They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.

The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
 

Shared decision-making

Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.

The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”

With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.

For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.

Metabolically neutral

Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.

These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.

In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.

With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.

Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.

Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.

Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.

For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.

The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.

The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
 

Lowest effective dose

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”

Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.

“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.

Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.

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

New research may help physicians avoid the widespread problem of antipsychotic-induced weight gain and changes in metabolic parameters in patients with acute schizophrenia.

In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.

Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.  

“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.

“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Balancing risks and benefits

Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.

Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note

The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.

To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.

Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.

The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.

The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.

They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.

The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
 

Shared decision-making

Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.

The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”

With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.

For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.

Metabolically neutral

Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.

These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.

In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.

With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.

Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.

Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.

Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.

For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.

The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.

The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
 

Lowest effective dose

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”

Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.

“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.

Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

THE CASE

A 44-year-old man with a history of morbid obesity reestablished care in our clinic. He had been treated in our health care system about 5 years previously, and prior lab testing showed a total cholesterol of 203 mg/dL; triglycerides, 191 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL), 56 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), 109 mg/dL. At that time, he weighed 299 lbs (BMI, 39.4). He then started a strict ketogenic diet and a regular exercise program (running ~ 16 miles per week and lifting weights), which he maintained for several years. He had experienced remarkable weight loss; upon reestablishing care, he weighed 199 lbs (BMI, 26.33).

However, lipid testing revealed a severely elevated total cholesterol of 334 mg/dL; LDL, 248 mg/dL; HDL, 67 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 95 mg/dL. He was advised to start statin therapy and to stop his ketogenic diet, but he was hesitant to take either step. He elected to have his lab work reevaluated in 6 months.

About 4 months later, he presented with new and increasing burning pain in his mid chest and upper abdomen. He rated the pain 6/10 in severity and said it occurred during exertion or at night when lying down. Resting would relieve the pain. Reduced intake of spicy foods and caffeine had also helped. He denied dyspnea, diaphoresis, palpitations, or nausea.

The patient was a nonsmoker but did have a strong family history of cardiovascular disease. His vital signs and physical examination were unremarkable, apart from mild epigastric and periumbilical tenderness on palpation.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s chest pain had features of both gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) with exertional angina. His high-fat diet, nightly symptoms, and the partial relief he achieved by cutting back on spicy foods and caffeine suggested GERD, but the exertional nature of the chest pain and gradual relief with rest was highly suggestive of angina, so an outpatient electrocardiogram treadmill stress test was ordered.

The stress test was markedly abnormal, showing worsening ST depressions and T-wave inversions with exertion, and he experienced chest pain during testing. An urgent left heart catheterization was performed, showing severe multivessel CAD. He subsequently underwent 3-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting. A familial hypercholesterolemia panel failed to reveal any significant variants.

As a result of these findings, the patient received a diagnosis of severe ketogenic diet–associated hypercholesterolemia and early-onset CAD.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) and ketogenic diets have grown in popularity throughout the United States over the past decade, particularly for weight loss, and the diet has entered the popular consciousness with several celebrities publicly supporting it.¹ Simultaneously, there also has been a growing interest in these diets for the treatment of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.² However, the long-term cardiovascular effects of low-carb diets are not well studied, and there is significant heterogeneity among these diets.

Low-carb vs low-fat. Multiple meta-analyses comparing low-carb diets to low-fat diets have found that those following low-carb diets have significantly higher total cholesterol and LDL levels.^3,4,5 The National Lipid Association’s review of evidence determined that LDL and total cholesterol responses vary in individuals following a low-carb diet, but that increasing LDL levels in particular were concerning enough to warrant lipid monitoring of patients on low-carb diets.⁶ Another meta-analysis evaluated the difference in estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk between low-carb and low-fat diets, finding those following a low-carb diet to have a lower estimated ASCVD risk but higher LDL levels.⁷

The severe worsening of this patient’s LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD.

Weighing the benefits and harms. Since our patient’s dramatic weight loss and greatly increased exercise level would be expected to lower his LDL levels, the severe worsening of his LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD. The benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss, contrasted with the consistent worsening of LDL levels, has prompted a debate about which parameters should be considered in estimating the long-term risk of these diets for patients. Diamond et al⁸ posit that these diets have beneficial effects on “the most reliable [cardiovascular disease] risk factors,” but long-term, patient-oriented outcome data are lacking, and these diets may not be appropriate for certain patients, as our case demonstrates.

A reasonable strategy for patients contemplating a low-carb diet specifically for weight loss would be to use such a diet for 3 to 6 months to achieve initial and rapid results, then continue with a heart-healthy diet and increased exercise levels to maintain weight loss and reduce long-term cardiovascular risk.

Our patient was started on a post­operative medication regimen of aspirin 81 mg/d, evolocumab 140 mg every 14 days, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg bid, and rosuva­statin 10 mg/d. A year later, he was able to resume a high level of physical activity (6-mile runs) without chest pain. His follow-up lipid panel showed a total cholesterol of 153 mg/dL; LDL, 53 mg/dL; HDL, 89 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 55 mg/dL. He had also switched to a regular diet and had been able to maintain his weight loss.

THE TAKEAWAY

Growing evidence suggests that low-carb diets may have a significant and detrimental effect on LDL levels. The long-term safety of these diets hasn’t been well studied, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes. At a minimum, patients who initiate low-carb diets should be counseled on general dietary recommendations regarding saturated fat and cholesterol intake, and they should have a follow-up lipid screening to evaluate for any significant worsening in total cholesterol and LDL levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Samuel Dickmann, MD, 13611 NW 1st Lane, Suite 200, Newberry, FL 32669; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 44-year-old man with a history of morbid obesity reestablished care in our clinic. He had been treated in our health care system about 5 years previously, and prior lab testing showed a total cholesterol of 203 mg/dL; triglycerides, 191 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL), 56 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), 109 mg/dL. At that time, he weighed 299 lbs (BMI, 39.4). He then started a strict ketogenic diet and a regular exercise program (running ~ 16 miles per week and lifting weights), which he maintained for several years. He had experienced remarkable weight loss; upon reestablishing care, he weighed 199 lbs (BMI, 26.33).

However, lipid testing revealed a severely elevated total cholesterol of 334 mg/dL; LDL, 248 mg/dL; HDL, 67 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 95 mg/dL. He was advised to start statin therapy and to stop his ketogenic diet, but he was hesitant to take either step. He elected to have his lab work reevaluated in 6 months.

About 4 months later, he presented with new and increasing burning pain in his mid chest and upper abdomen. He rated the pain 6/10 in severity and said it occurred during exertion or at night when lying down. Resting would relieve the pain. Reduced intake of spicy foods and caffeine had also helped. He denied dyspnea, diaphoresis, palpitations, or nausea.

The patient was a nonsmoker but did have a strong family history of cardiovascular disease. His vital signs and physical examination were unremarkable, apart from mild epigastric and periumbilical tenderness on palpation.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s chest pain had features of both gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) with exertional angina. His high-fat diet, nightly symptoms, and the partial relief he achieved by cutting back on spicy foods and caffeine suggested GERD, but the exertional nature of the chest pain and gradual relief with rest was highly suggestive of angina, so an outpatient electrocardiogram treadmill stress test was ordered.

The stress test was markedly abnormal, showing worsening ST depressions and T-wave inversions with exertion, and he experienced chest pain during testing. An urgent left heart catheterization was performed, showing severe multivessel CAD. He subsequently underwent 3-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting. A familial hypercholesterolemia panel failed to reveal any significant variants.

As a result of these findings, the patient received a diagnosis of severe ketogenic diet–associated hypercholesterolemia and early-onset CAD.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) and ketogenic diets have grown in popularity throughout the United States over the past decade, particularly for weight loss, and the diet has entered the popular consciousness with several celebrities publicly supporting it.¹ Simultaneously, there also has been a growing interest in these diets for the treatment of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.² However, the long-term cardiovascular effects of low-carb diets are not well studied, and there is significant heterogeneity among these diets.

Low-carb vs low-fat. Multiple meta-analyses comparing low-carb diets to low-fat diets have found that those following low-carb diets have significantly higher total cholesterol and LDL levels.^3,4,5 The National Lipid Association’s review of evidence determined that LDL and total cholesterol responses vary in individuals following a low-carb diet, but that increasing LDL levels in particular were concerning enough to warrant lipid monitoring of patients on low-carb diets.⁶ Another meta-analysis evaluated the difference in estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk between low-carb and low-fat diets, finding those following a low-carb diet to have a lower estimated ASCVD risk but higher LDL levels.⁷

The severe worsening of this patient’s LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD.

Weighing the benefits and harms. Since our patient’s dramatic weight loss and greatly increased exercise level would be expected to lower his LDL levels, the severe worsening of his LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD. The benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss, contrasted with the consistent worsening of LDL levels, has prompted a debate about which parameters should be considered in estimating the long-term risk of these diets for patients. Diamond et al⁸ posit that these diets have beneficial effects on “the most reliable [cardiovascular disease] risk factors,” but long-term, patient-oriented outcome data are lacking, and these diets may not be appropriate for certain patients, as our case demonstrates.

A reasonable strategy for patients contemplating a low-carb diet specifically for weight loss would be to use such a diet for 3 to 6 months to achieve initial and rapid results, then continue with a heart-healthy diet and increased exercise levels to maintain weight loss and reduce long-term cardiovascular risk.

Our patient was started on a post­operative medication regimen of aspirin 81 mg/d, evolocumab 140 mg every 14 days, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg bid, and rosuva­statin 10 mg/d. A year later, he was able to resume a high level of physical activity (6-mile runs) without chest pain. His follow-up lipid panel showed a total cholesterol of 153 mg/dL; LDL, 53 mg/dL; HDL, 89 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 55 mg/dL. He had also switched to a regular diet and had been able to maintain his weight loss.

THE TAKEAWAY

Growing evidence suggests that low-carb diets may have a significant and detrimental effect on LDL levels. The long-term safety of these diets hasn’t been well studied, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes. At a minimum, patients who initiate low-carb diets should be counseled on general dietary recommendations regarding saturated fat and cholesterol intake, and they should have a follow-up lipid screening to evaluate for any significant worsening in total cholesterol and LDL levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Samuel Dickmann, MD, 13611 NW 1st Lane, Suite 200, Newberry, FL 32669; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 44-year-old man with a history of morbid obesity reestablished care in our clinic. He had been treated in our health care system about 5 years previously, and prior lab testing showed a total cholesterol of 203 mg/dL; triglycerides, 191 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein (HDL), 56 mg/dL; and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), 109 mg/dL. At that time, he weighed 299 lbs (BMI, 39.4). He then started a strict ketogenic diet and a regular exercise program (running ~ 16 miles per week and lifting weights), which he maintained for several years. He had experienced remarkable weight loss; upon reestablishing care, he weighed 199 lbs (BMI, 26.33).

However, lipid testing revealed a severely elevated total cholesterol of 334 mg/dL; LDL, 248 mg/dL; HDL, 67 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 95 mg/dL. He was advised to start statin therapy and to stop his ketogenic diet, but he was hesitant to take either step. He elected to have his lab work reevaluated in 6 months.

About 4 months later, he presented with new and increasing burning pain in his mid chest and upper abdomen. He rated the pain 6/10 in severity and said it occurred during exertion or at night when lying down. Resting would relieve the pain. Reduced intake of spicy foods and caffeine had also helped. He denied dyspnea, diaphoresis, palpitations, or nausea.

The patient was a nonsmoker but did have a strong family history of cardiovascular disease. His vital signs and physical examination were unremarkable, apart from mild epigastric and periumbilical tenderness on palpation.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient’s chest pain had features of both gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) with exertional angina. His high-fat diet, nightly symptoms, and the partial relief he achieved by cutting back on spicy foods and caffeine suggested GERD, but the exertional nature of the chest pain and gradual relief with rest was highly suggestive of angina, so an outpatient electrocardiogram treadmill stress test was ordered.

The stress test was markedly abnormal, showing worsening ST depressions and T-wave inversions with exertion, and he experienced chest pain during testing. An urgent left heart catheterization was performed, showing severe multivessel CAD. He subsequently underwent 3-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting. A familial hypercholesterolemia panel failed to reveal any significant variants.

As a result of these findings, the patient received a diagnosis of severe ketogenic diet–associated hypercholesterolemia and early-onset CAD.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

Low-carbohydrate (low-carb) and ketogenic diets have grown in popularity throughout the United States over the past decade, particularly for weight loss, and the diet has entered the popular consciousness with several celebrities publicly supporting it.¹ Simultaneously, there also has been a growing interest in these diets for the treatment of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.² However, the long-term cardiovascular effects of low-carb diets are not well studied, and there is significant heterogeneity among these diets.

Low-carb vs low-fat. Multiple meta-analyses comparing low-carb diets to low-fat diets have found that those following low-carb diets have significantly higher total cholesterol and LDL levels.^3,4,5 The National Lipid Association’s review of evidence determined that LDL and total cholesterol responses vary in individuals following a low-carb diet, but that increasing LDL levels in particular were concerning enough to warrant lipid monitoring of patients on low-carb diets.⁶ Another meta-analysis evaluated the difference in estimated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk between low-carb and low-fat diets, finding those following a low-carb diet to have a lower estimated ASCVD risk but higher LDL levels.⁷

The severe worsening of this patient’s LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD.

Weighing the benefits and harms. Since our patient’s dramatic weight loss and greatly increased exercise level would be expected to lower his LDL levels, the severe worsening of his LDL levels was likely related to his ketogenic diet and was a factor in the early onset of CAD. The benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss, contrasted with the consistent worsening of LDL levels, has prompted a debate about which parameters should be considered in estimating the long-term risk of these diets for patients. Diamond et al⁸ posit that these diets have beneficial effects on “the most reliable [cardiovascular disease] risk factors,” but long-term, patient-oriented outcome data are lacking, and these diets may not be appropriate for certain patients, as our case demonstrates.

A reasonable strategy for patients contemplating a low-carb diet specifically for weight loss would be to use such a diet for 3 to 6 months to achieve initial and rapid results, then continue with a heart-healthy diet and increased exercise levels to maintain weight loss and reduce long-term cardiovascular risk.

Our patient was started on a post­operative medication regimen of aspirin 81 mg/d, evolocumab 140 mg every 14 days, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg bid, and rosuva­statin 10 mg/d. A year later, he was able to resume a high level of physical activity (6-mile runs) without chest pain. His follow-up lipid panel showed a total cholesterol of 153 mg/dL; LDL, 53 mg/dL; HDL, 89 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 55 mg/dL. He had also switched to a regular diet and had been able to maintain his weight loss.

THE TAKEAWAY

Growing evidence suggests that low-carb diets may have a significant and detrimental effect on LDL levels. The long-term safety of these diets hasn’t been well studied, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes. At a minimum, patients who initiate low-carb diets should be counseled on general dietary recommendations regarding saturated fat and cholesterol intake, and they should have a follow-up lipid screening to evaluate for any significant worsening in total cholesterol and LDL levels.

CORRESPONDENCE
Samuel Dickmann, MD, 13611 NW 1st Lane, Suite 200, Newberry, FL 32669; [email protected]

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting for more than 8 hours per day increases the chances of becoming overweight or obese, unlike sitting for only 4 hours per day, according to a recent Latin American study published in BMC Public Health.

These data come from almost 8,000 people aged 20-65 years (half of whom are women) who participated in the Latin American Study on Nutrition and Health (ELANS). The cross-sectional survey included representative samples from urban populations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. The average time spent sitting was 420 min/d. Ecuador had the lowest time (300 min/day), and Argentina and Peru had the highest (480 min/day).

No amount of sitting time has been associated with a greater health risk, but the World Health Organization recommends that sitting time be minimal.

“We used to believe that any intense physical exercise could compensate for a sedentary life. But now we know that a sedentary lifestyle in general and sitting time in particular have a direct effect and are an independent risk factor for chronic diseases,” said study author Irina Kovalskys, PhD, a pediatric specialist in nutrition and a professor of nutrition at the Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and a principal investigator of ELANS.

Dr. Kovalskys stated that the 420-min average sitting time is worrying in a population such as the one studied, in which 60% of adults are obese and there are high rates of cardiometabolic risk factors. She affirmed that it is important to raise awareness among the population and focus on adolescents.

Felipe Lobelo, PhD, is a Colombian physician, an associate professor of global health at Emory University and director of epidemiology at Kaiser Permanente Georgia, both in Atlanta. He did not participate in this study but promotes the concept of exercise in medicine. The activity of the patient must be included in a clinical setting, and improving the level of physical activity can have a positive impact on health prognosis, he said.

“To make public health recommendations or even advise patients, a cutoff point is needed. Guidelines recommend 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and some countries have started to indicate that we should be concerned about people’s sitting time. There is still no equivalent to the 150 minutes, therefore, these studies are important, especially in the Latin American population,” said Dr. Lobelo.

He explained that the concept of an increased risk of death or chronic disease because of a lack of physical activity arose in the past 50 years, but only in the past 2 decades have we started thinking about sitting time.

“Spending more than 8 hours sitting per day clearly causes a much higher risk of chronic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. It may be a continuous and progressive association, and the point at which this increase becomes exponential is clearly between 6 and 8 hours of sitting time,” Dr. Lobelo added.

The authors expected to find a linear association with risk for being overweight or obese after 4 hours, but they did not find one. “This study has limitations. Among them was that other indicators were not considered, such as health indicators. Collaborations are starting with other research groups, and other studies are being designed,” said study author Gerson Ferrari, PhD, an associate professor at Santiago de Chile University.
 

Comparing indicators

The Latin American study tried to establish a sitting cutoff time after which the risk of becoming overweight or obese increases. It used three indicators of excess weight: body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and neck circumference.

Sitting for more than 8 hours increased the chances of excess weight by 10% when measured by BMI and by 13% when neck circumference was used.

Dr. Ferrari stated that the result obtained measuring BMI is the one that should be considered, because it is used in public policy. Neck circumference is a more recent measurement of detection and it is less studied, but it is a valid indicator, with good sensitivity and advantages over others, such as ease of measurement and lack of variation over time.

According to the results of this study, measuring neck circumference may be the most sensitive method of the three. Neck circumference was proportionally greater in people who sat for at least 4, at least 6, and at least 8 hours/day than in those who sat for less than 4, less than 6, and less than 8 hours/day. This relationship was not observed with the other indicators.
 

Broaching the topic

“What is important is uninterrupted sitting time. The recommendation is to break up those sitting times with active periods. Health professionals have already incorporated the concept of moderate to vigorous physical exercise, but nonintense activities are sufficient to reduce sitting time. Yoga may not be vigorous, but it is valuable at reducing sitting time,” said Dr. Kovalskys.

Dr. Ferrari recommended giving patients concrete messages so that they spend as little time possible sitting. “It is better to stand on the bus or the subway even when there is a place to sit. Are you going to talk on the phone? It is better to do it while walking or at least standing instead of sitting.”

A recent literature review conducted by investigators of the University of Birmingham (England) studied the possible molecular and physiologic mechanisms of inactivity time, health consequences, and protection strategies. It offers an evaluation of interventions that can compensate for the immediate negative consequences of inactivity.
 

Physical activity

Some studies suggest that more than 60 min/day of moderate-intensity exercise or more than 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous exercise may be effective at mitigating the increased risk for mortality associated with sitting time, but reduced intensity may not be enough.

Active pauses

Interrupting sitting every 30-60 min to walk or cycle (2-10 min), performing 3 minutes of simple resistance activities every 30 minutes, such as calf or knee lifts, performing intermittent leg movements (1 minute of activity for every 4 minutes of inactivity during a 3-hour protocol session), or pausing to climb stairs (5 minutes every hour) may be beneficial for vascular health. However, not all studies have demonstrated these positive effects, therefore, some populations may need exercise of greater intensity or duration to counteract the negative vascular effects of acute inactivity periods.

Standing workstations

Standing workstations are effective at reducing sitting time in offices but may be ineffective at reducing vascular alterations related to sitting time. Although some experimental studies indicate vascular benefits, epidemiologic studies suggest that long periods of standing can be harmful to vascular health, especially for venous diseases. Recommendations for use should be accompanied by specific regimens on the frequency and duration of the position to attain the maximum benefits and minimize other vascular complications.

One problem that Dr. Lobelo noted is that some doctors ask their patients how active they are, but they do so in a nonstandardized manner. This observation led him to publish, together with the American Heart Association, an article on the importance for health systems of considering physical activity as a vital sign and including it in records in a standardized manner.

He said that “one advantage of having physical activity as a vital sign in patient medical records is that it allows us to identify individuals who are at greater risk.”

Kaiser Permanente asks the following questions: how many minutes of physical activity do you perform regularly per week, and what is the average intensity of that activity? Patients can be classified into the following three groups: those who follow the recommendations, those with almost no activity, and those who perform some physical activity but do not meet the recommended 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous activity.

Recording sitting time is more difficult. Dr. Lobelo indicated that “it is easier for a person to remember how much time they spent running than how long they were sitting.” Regarding the use of technology, he commented that most watches provide a good estimate. Without technology, it can be estimated by asking how much time is spent in the car, on the bus, or in front of the computer or television and then adding up these times.

Dr. Lobelo emphasized that the two behaviors, lack of physical activity and excessive sitting time, have independent associations with health outcomes. But if both are combined, the risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases is not just added but rather is multiplied. These behaviors contribute to the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, since most people do not follow either of the two recommendations.

“Studies show that of the two behaviors, the more negative for health would be not following the physical activity recommendations,” said Dr. Lobelo. “If the recommendation of 150 min/week of moderate to vigorous physical activity is followed, the associated risk of sitting too much declines by 80%-90%. Additionally, we can prevent, help to manage, and decrease the risk of complications in more than 100 diseases, including infections. During the pandemic, it was observed that more active people had a lower risk of dying or of being hospitalized due to COVID-19 than less active people, independently of other factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity.”

Moreover, Dr. Lobelo believes in “practicing what you preach” and advocates that doctors become healthy models.

Dr. Lobelo, Dr. Ferrari, and Dr. Kovalskys disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.