User login
Noise and Artificial Light
If you’ve ever taken a red-eye flight you have probably received a little packet of items the airline hopes will make your night flight more comfortable. If you had shelled out for “extra leg room” or “more comfort” seating, your little kit may have included some one-size-never-fits-all socks, a toothbrush large enough to brush one tooth at a time, and a miniature tube of toothpaste the GEICO gecko would laugh at. I have no personal knowledge what the folks in first class are getting, but I suspect it comes in a calf skin Gucci pouch. But, regardless of where you are sitting, at a minimum your night comfort kit will come with an eye mask and ear plugs. Unfortunately, these freebies are wasted on me because I already use a sleep mask every night and simply turn off my hearing aids to mute the noise. But I appreciate their effort.
Light and sound are well-known sleep disruptors. Temperature gets less attention, but is nonetheless a potent contributor to a poor night’s sleep in my experience. Just by chance while I was recovering from my most recent jet lag, I encountered two papers from investigators who were curious about the association between healthy sleep and ambient light and noise.
The first paper looked at the relationship between artificial light at night (ALAN) and the incidence of insomnia. Looking at more than 300 Chinese cities, the investigators measured ALAN using satellite images and correlated the data with insomnia-related posts on social media. The researchers found when ALAN increased insomnia, related posts also increased. Not surprisingly, this relationship was greater in less populated cities during extreme temperatures and when air quality was poor.
The second paper came from University of Texas at Houston. Using Fitbit data from more than 3000 adolescents, the researchers looked for correlations between blood pressure, sleep health, and “median nighttime anthropogenic noise levels by ZIP code.” Turns out the Federal Highway Administration has a readily available map of these noise levels.
What the investigators found was that adequate sleep significantly reduces the risk of hypertension in adolescents. Not an unexpected finding to an ex-pediatrician like myself who is obsessed with the importance of sleep deprivation. However, the investigators and I were surprised that they had found no association between neighborhood noise alone or in combination with sleep health. I still suspect there is an association lurking there in the weeds of their data, but obviously it is not robust enough to float to the surface. It may be that in an acute situation noise can contribute to hypertension, but over time individuals adjust to the new sound level and their blood pressure settles down. Sleep is such a critical factor that it is not something our cardiovascular system can adapt to so easily. For various reasons most of us may already be functioning at the margins of sleep deprivation.
How then do we respond to observations by these two research teams? Do we take an approach similar to that the airlines have taken and prescribe, hand out, or sell ear plugs and sleep masks to every patient, or at least those with hypertension? This is what we could call the put-the-onus-on-the-patient approach, which seems to be the default when we lack the political will to take a bolder step.
The other path we could call the socio-environmental approach. The airlines have made a passing attempt at this by turning the cabin lights down on red-eye flights. I recently wrote about the “exposome,” which some investigators define as the total non-genetic exposures an individual endures during a lifetime and which in many situations has a negative effect on the individual’s health. These two papers clearly demonstrate that noise and nighttime artificial light are potent features of an uncountable number of individuals’ exposomes.
Unfortunately, it is going to require something far beyond these two relatively obscure studies to move the needle in the direction of a healthier population. It’s is not a stretch to put obesity and the attention deficit phenomenon under this same umbrella where our society needs to look at itself for the answers.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
If you’ve ever taken a red-eye flight you have probably received a little packet of items the airline hopes will make your night flight more comfortable. If you had shelled out for “extra leg room” or “more comfort” seating, your little kit may have included some one-size-never-fits-all socks, a toothbrush large enough to brush one tooth at a time, and a miniature tube of toothpaste the GEICO gecko would laugh at. I have no personal knowledge what the folks in first class are getting, but I suspect it comes in a calf skin Gucci pouch. But, regardless of where you are sitting, at a minimum your night comfort kit will come with an eye mask and ear plugs. Unfortunately, these freebies are wasted on me because I already use a sleep mask every night and simply turn off my hearing aids to mute the noise. But I appreciate their effort.
Light and sound are well-known sleep disruptors. Temperature gets less attention, but is nonetheless a potent contributor to a poor night’s sleep in my experience. Just by chance while I was recovering from my most recent jet lag, I encountered two papers from investigators who were curious about the association between healthy sleep and ambient light and noise.
The first paper looked at the relationship between artificial light at night (ALAN) and the incidence of insomnia. Looking at more than 300 Chinese cities, the investigators measured ALAN using satellite images and correlated the data with insomnia-related posts on social media. The researchers found when ALAN increased insomnia, related posts also increased. Not surprisingly, this relationship was greater in less populated cities during extreme temperatures and when air quality was poor.
The second paper came from University of Texas at Houston. Using Fitbit data from more than 3000 adolescents, the researchers looked for correlations between blood pressure, sleep health, and “median nighttime anthropogenic noise levels by ZIP code.” Turns out the Federal Highway Administration has a readily available map of these noise levels.
What the investigators found was that adequate sleep significantly reduces the risk of hypertension in adolescents. Not an unexpected finding to an ex-pediatrician like myself who is obsessed with the importance of sleep deprivation. However, the investigators and I were surprised that they had found no association between neighborhood noise alone or in combination with sleep health. I still suspect there is an association lurking there in the weeds of their data, but obviously it is not robust enough to float to the surface. It may be that in an acute situation noise can contribute to hypertension, but over time individuals adjust to the new sound level and their blood pressure settles down. Sleep is such a critical factor that it is not something our cardiovascular system can adapt to so easily. For various reasons most of us may already be functioning at the margins of sleep deprivation.
How then do we respond to observations by these two research teams? Do we take an approach similar to that the airlines have taken and prescribe, hand out, or sell ear plugs and sleep masks to every patient, or at least those with hypertension? This is what we could call the put-the-onus-on-the-patient approach, which seems to be the default when we lack the political will to take a bolder step.
The other path we could call the socio-environmental approach. The airlines have made a passing attempt at this by turning the cabin lights down on red-eye flights. I recently wrote about the “exposome,” which some investigators define as the total non-genetic exposures an individual endures during a lifetime and which in many situations has a negative effect on the individual’s health. These two papers clearly demonstrate that noise and nighttime artificial light are potent features of an uncountable number of individuals’ exposomes.
Unfortunately, it is going to require something far beyond these two relatively obscure studies to move the needle in the direction of a healthier population. It’s is not a stretch to put obesity and the attention deficit phenomenon under this same umbrella where our society needs to look at itself for the answers.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
If you’ve ever taken a red-eye flight you have probably received a little packet of items the airline hopes will make your night flight more comfortable. If you had shelled out for “extra leg room” or “more comfort” seating, your little kit may have included some one-size-never-fits-all socks, a toothbrush large enough to brush one tooth at a time, and a miniature tube of toothpaste the GEICO gecko would laugh at. I have no personal knowledge what the folks in first class are getting, but I suspect it comes in a calf skin Gucci pouch. But, regardless of where you are sitting, at a minimum your night comfort kit will come with an eye mask and ear plugs. Unfortunately, these freebies are wasted on me because I already use a sleep mask every night and simply turn off my hearing aids to mute the noise. But I appreciate their effort.
Light and sound are well-known sleep disruptors. Temperature gets less attention, but is nonetheless a potent contributor to a poor night’s sleep in my experience. Just by chance while I was recovering from my most recent jet lag, I encountered two papers from investigators who were curious about the association between healthy sleep and ambient light and noise.
The first paper looked at the relationship between artificial light at night (ALAN) and the incidence of insomnia. Looking at more than 300 Chinese cities, the investigators measured ALAN using satellite images and correlated the data with insomnia-related posts on social media. The researchers found when ALAN increased insomnia, related posts also increased. Not surprisingly, this relationship was greater in less populated cities during extreme temperatures and when air quality was poor.
The second paper came from University of Texas at Houston. Using Fitbit data from more than 3000 adolescents, the researchers looked for correlations between blood pressure, sleep health, and “median nighttime anthropogenic noise levels by ZIP code.” Turns out the Federal Highway Administration has a readily available map of these noise levels.
What the investigators found was that adequate sleep significantly reduces the risk of hypertension in adolescents. Not an unexpected finding to an ex-pediatrician like myself who is obsessed with the importance of sleep deprivation. However, the investigators and I were surprised that they had found no association between neighborhood noise alone or in combination with sleep health. I still suspect there is an association lurking there in the weeds of their data, but obviously it is not robust enough to float to the surface. It may be that in an acute situation noise can contribute to hypertension, but over time individuals adjust to the new sound level and their blood pressure settles down. Sleep is such a critical factor that it is not something our cardiovascular system can adapt to so easily. For various reasons most of us may already be functioning at the margins of sleep deprivation.
How then do we respond to observations by these two research teams? Do we take an approach similar to that the airlines have taken and prescribe, hand out, or sell ear plugs and sleep masks to every patient, or at least those with hypertension? This is what we could call the put-the-onus-on-the-patient approach, which seems to be the default when we lack the political will to take a bolder step.
The other path we could call the socio-environmental approach. The airlines have made a passing attempt at this by turning the cabin lights down on red-eye flights. I recently wrote about the “exposome,” which some investigators define as the total non-genetic exposures an individual endures during a lifetime and which in many situations has a negative effect on the individual’s health. These two papers clearly demonstrate that noise and nighttime artificial light are potent features of an uncountable number of individuals’ exposomes.
Unfortunately, it is going to require something far beyond these two relatively obscure studies to move the needle in the direction of a healthier population. It’s is not a stretch to put obesity and the attention deficit phenomenon under this same umbrella where our society needs to look at itself for the answers.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
No, Diet and Exercise Are Not Better Than Drugs for Obesity
They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.
Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?
Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.
Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.
Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.
What?
The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.
At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.
Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data).
Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.
It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.
Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?
Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.
Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.
Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.
What?
The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.
At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.
Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data).
Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.
It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.
Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?
Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.
Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.
Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.
What?
The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.
At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.
Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data).
Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.
It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.
Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Has Tirzepatide Scaled the HFpEF/Obesity SUMMIT?
The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.
Known Facts About HFpEF
HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.
Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.
GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.
The SUMMIT Trial
The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.
Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.
Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.
Tirzepatide Results
The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).
The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).
The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).
The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.
Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).
Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments
At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.
Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”
Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.
The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.
My Six Concerns With SUMMIT
The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.
The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.
I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.
The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.
The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.
For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.
The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.
Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.
The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.
Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.
In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.
Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.
Known Facts About HFpEF
HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.
Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.
GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.
The SUMMIT Trial
The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.
Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.
Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.
Tirzepatide Results
The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).
The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).
The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).
The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.
Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).
Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments
At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.
Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”
Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.
The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.
My Six Concerns With SUMMIT
The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.
The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.
I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.
The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.
The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.
For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.
The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.
Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.
The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.
Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.
In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.
Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.
Known Facts About HFpEF
HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.
Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.
GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.
This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.
The SUMMIT Trial
The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.
Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.
Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.
Tirzepatide Results
The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).
The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).
The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).
The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.
Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).
Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments
At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.
Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”
Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.
The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.
My Six Concerns With SUMMIT
The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.
The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.
I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.
The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.
The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.
For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.
The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.
Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.
The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.
Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.
In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.
Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are Endocrine Disruptors Really a Threat to Health?
Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.
Environmental EDs
Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.
These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”
The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.
Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.
Multiple Linked Diseases
An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.
Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.
EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.
A Difficult Battle
Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:
- Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
- Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
- Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)
Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.
This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.
Environmental EDs
Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.
These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”
The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.
Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.
Multiple Linked Diseases
An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.
Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.
EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.
A Difficult Battle
Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:
- Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
- Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
- Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)
Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.
This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Endocrine disruptors (EDs) — chemicals in the environment that could affect human endocrine function — are increasingly becoming a prominent concern for the public as well as professionals. At its 40th congress, the French Society of Endocrinology hosted a public lecture on the subject, given by Nicolas Chevalier, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at the University Hospital of Nice in France.
Environmental EDs
Chevalier began by asking the audience to remember one number: 906. This is the number of substances identified by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety for which there are sufficient scientific data to confirm or at least suspect endocrine-disrupting activity. In reality, the number is likely closer to 10,000, he said.
These chemicals include bisphenol A and its substitutes, parabens, phthalates, and pesticides. Additionally, lithium (mainly found in batteries), polychlorinated biphenyls, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and polybromodiphenyl ethers, or brominated flame retardants, are included. These products are found throughout our environment, so much so that Chevalier said: “We are swimming in a soup of endocrine disruptors.”
The main source of human contamination is food, responsible for an estimated 80%-90% of those encountered. They may enter the food supply during production or preservation, and pesticides are not the only culprits. For example, fatty fish contain heavy metals. Water is also a significant source of contamination. It is worth noting that tap water is the cleanest and most monitored type when it comes to EDs. However, plastic bottles leach not only EDs but also microplastics, which are a major environmental pollution source.
Many other features in our daily environment contain EDs: Clothing (especially shoes), nonstick cookware, plastic containers (especially those heated in the microwave), plastic toys (which young children often put in their mouths), and cosmetic products (makeup, which is increasingly used by young girls). The placenta is not the barrier it was once thought to be: Amniotic fluid has been found to contain about 35 molecules that are toxic for the fetus, with at least 11 or 12 exceeding safety thresholds.
Multiple Linked Diseases
An incomplete list of ED-related diseases would include cancer, infertility, obesity, and diabetes, Chevalier said. Are these data alarmist? he asked. After all, life expectancy has increased globally by more than 10 years since the 1970s, and this has occurred alongside the increased use of EDs. However, he suggested remembering a second number: 157. This represents the billions of euros in European healthcare costs primarily caused by neurologic disorders linked to pesticides. They have a half-life estimated at least 10 years, and banning them will not stop them from persisting in the environment for up to 40 years. US studies have shown that their presence in the environment contributes to cognitive delays in young children.
Another area of concern is the rising infertility rates among couples, now affecting around one in five in France. This trend has been linked to the toxicity of EDs on the genital tract, especially in men, and is not only related to increased use of birth control. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of contraceptive use have increased only marginally, but birth rates have significantly decreased in areas contaminated by waste that is inadequately managed by Western standards.
EDs have also been implicated in the rising incidence of several cancers, including breast cancer in women and prostate cancer in men, and may have contributed to increases in both childhood obesity and adult diabetes.
A Difficult Battle
Chevalier asked: Is the increase in ED contamination inevitable? No, he said, but it is extremely difficult to counter. Governments are reluctant to legislate, particularly when jobs are at stake, even though certain workers are particularly exposed. The ideal situation would be for the public to take matters into their own hands by eliminating EDs from their environment through daily actions that pressure policymakers to act. For example:
- Eliminate plastics (especially for food products) and nonstick coatings
- Reject most cleaning products in favor of traditional solutions (eg, white vinegar and baking soda)
- Avoid imported toys (as producer countries often fail to comply with European health standards)
Environmental charters have been created by several local authorities and regional health agencies. Chevalier urged the public to rely on their recommendations and resources to help drive change.
This story was translated from Univadis France using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can We Fight Social Media’s Promotion of Junk Food?
Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids.
Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.
The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period.
And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it.
For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.
But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.
Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines.
Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.
Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids.
Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.
The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period.
And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it.
For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.
But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.
Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines.
Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.
Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Of those three truths, the one that tends to get more public health attention is advertising. More specifically, advertising junk food to kids.
Back in the days when cable television was king of all free time, study after study tried to quantify junk- and fast-food advertising to kids and speculated about its impact on childhood obesity rates. But as broadcast television use began fading, advertisers — and, of course, studies about advertising — turned their attention first to gaming and now to social media.
The social media numbers are quite staggering. According to a study published — probably not coincidentally — on Halloween, looking at the 40 top brands of junk- and fast food sold in Canada, those 40 brands alone were mentioned over 16 million times by social media users, reaching an estimated 42 billion total users within a 1-year period.
And unique to the challenge of junk- and fast-food advertising on social media is that it also includes “earned” advertising, the kind not paid for by manufacturers but rather the kind where friends, family, and influencers post about junk food. Occasionally, though, these lines are blurred by initiatives from fast-food manufacturers explicitly encouraging social sharing. Consequently, even were there a desire, there isn’t likely to be a regulatory mechanism to markedly reduce it.
For years, here in North America, excepting Quebec, the desire has been mainly to just talk about how concerned we are about junk-food advertising to kids. Elsewhere, however, some countries tried to do more, including both Mexico and Chile, which put kid-targeted TV food advertising bans in place in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
Did they work? It depends on what outcome you’re considering. If the question is, did they work in regard to obesity? — which is how everyone tends to frame the question — by themselves, probably not. No one sandbag stops a flood, and though junk-food advertising is certainly a sandbag, we’re still facing a torrential downpour of obesity contributors. No doubt they did work to reduce kids’ exposure to junk-food advertising on television, but what remains to be seen is whether there is a means to now tackle social media’s generous servings of the same. Moreover, the obesity lens is the wrong one. Ultraprocessed food consumption isn’t good for anyone, regardless of weight, and its reduced marketing and consumption is a worthy goal of its own.
But Chile and Mexico are filling more than single sandbags, as both countries have rolled out a suite of interventions they are hoping will help improve nutrition: from front-of–package labeling reforms and warnings, to the banning of advertising geared specifically to appeal to children (like sugary cereal cartoon mascots), to implementing sugar-sweetened-beverage taxes, to having blanket overall bans on food advertising during the daytime.
Mexico is even taking first steps to start addressing junk food’s ubiquity by banning its sale in schools altogether. Schools found to be selling common Mexican junk food fare, such as sugary fruit drinks; chips; artificial pork rinds; and soy-encased, salty peanuts with chili, will see their administrators facing heavy fines.
Because therein lies the biggest rub. Going back to those three simple truths, junk food is hyperpalatable and consequently tends to be what we crave when we’re hungry. So even if we miraculously one day do more than just talk about advertising reforms, and especially given that we won’t be able to do anything about social media’s earned product placements, junk food’s ubiquitous availability within arms’ reach or on our Uber Eats apps will see us be likely to continue its excessive consumption.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t emulate Mexico and Chile’s initiatives, nor that they shouldn’t continue to build upon them, but one thing is certain: Human nature and inconvenient truths around food are incredibly powerful forces that we haven’t yet figured out how to tame.
Dr. Freedhoff, Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa; Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ADA Advises Against Using Compounded GLP-1 RA Medications
In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.
The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.
“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:
- Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
- If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
- Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.
The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.
However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:
- Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
- Only use products that include dosing guidance.
- Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.
In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.
The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.
“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:
- Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
- If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
- Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.
The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.
However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:
- Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
- Only use products that include dosing guidance.
- Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.
In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new statement, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has advised against the use of compounded glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 RA medication classes.
The ADA recommends GLP-1 RA and GIP/GLP-1 RA medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and kidney disease risk reduction, and weight management. The new ADA statement pertains to the unapproved, unregulated versions that have emerged as the demand for these medications for weight loss increases. These are often marketed directly to consumers.
“Compounded GLP-1 RA and dual GIP/GLP-1 RA products have been associated with clinically important dosing errors and adverse events. More concerning to individuals’ safety are counterfeit products that have made their way into the US drug supply chain and those advertised online and by unregulated sources,” the ADA said in the statement, published online on December 2, 2024, in Diabetes Care.
The statement, authored by Joshua J. Neumiller, PharmD, CDCES, of the Department of Pharmacotherapy, Washington State University, Spokane, and colleagues, states the following:
- Non–FDA-approved compounded incretin products are not recommended for use due to uncertainty about their content and resulting concerns about safety, quality, and effectiveness.
- If an incretin medication is unavailable (eg, in shortage), switching to a different FDA-approved medication is recommended as clinically appropriate to achieve and maintain individualized glucose-lowering, weight management, and/or cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction goals.
- Upon resolution of incretin product unavailability, reassess the appropriateness of resuming the original FDA-approved incretin medication.
The document points out that compounded products are not identical to the FDA-approved versions, may be distributed in nonstandard dosing devices, and may not provide sufficient user instructions.
However, “the ADA also recognizes that individuals and clinicians may still elect to use or recommend compounded products for financial or other reasons,” and therefore offers additional advice for the public, including the following:
- Discuss product use with their usual healthcare providers.
- Only use products that include dosing guidance.
- Verify that the compounding pharmacy is registered with FDA.
In addition, report any adverse events or medication errors to the FDA’s Medwatch.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Focus on Nutrient Density Instead of Limiting Certain Foods
The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.
That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.
Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).
Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management
Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.
As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.
But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.
What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.
How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation
Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.
Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.
I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.
Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.
The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.
Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.
That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.
Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).
Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management
Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.
As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.
But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.
What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.
How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation
Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.
Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.
I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.
Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.
The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.
Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The word “malnutrition” probably brings to mind images of very thin patients with catabolic illness. But it really just means “poor nutrition,” which can — and often does — apply to patients with overweight or obesity.
That’s because malnutrition doesn’t occur simply because of a lack of calories, but rather because there is a gap in the nutrition the body requires and the nutrition it receives.
Each day, clinicians see patients with chronic conditions related to malnutrition. That list includes diabetes and hypertension, which can be promoted by excess intake of certain nutrients (carbohydrates and sodium) or inadequate intake of others (fiber, protein, potassium, magnesium, and calcium).
Diet Education Is Vital in Chronic Disease Management
Diet education is without a doubt a core pillar of chronic disease management. Nutrition therapy is recommended in treatment guidelines for the management of some of the most commonly seen chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. But in one study, only 58% of physicians, nurses and other health professionals surveyed had received formal nutrition education and only 40% were confident in their ability to provide nutrition education to patients.
As a registered dietitian, I welcome referrals for both prevention and management of chronic diseases with open arms. But medical nutrition therapy with a registered dietitian may not be realistic for all patients owing to financial, geographic, or other constraints. So, their best option may be the few minutes that a physician or physician extender has to spare at the end of their appointment.
But time constraints may result in clinicians turning to short, easy-to-remember messages such as “Don’t eat anything white” or “Only shop the edges of the grocery store.” Although catchy, this type of advice can inadvertently encourage patients to skip over foods that are actually very nutrient dense. For example, white foods such as onions, turnips, mushrooms, cauliflower, and even popcorn are low in calories and high in nutritional value. The center aisles of the grocery store may harbor high-carbohydrate breakfast cereals and potato chips, but they are also home to legumes, nuts, and canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.
What may be more effective is educating the patient on the importance of focusing on the nutrient density of foods, rather than simply limiting certain food groups or colors.
How to Work Nutrient Density into the Conversation
Nutrient density is a concept that refers to the proportion of nutrients to calories in a food item: essentially, a food’s qualitative nutritional value. It provides more depth than simply referring to foods as being high or low in calories, healthy or unhealthy, or good or bad.
Educating patients about nutrition density and encouraging a focus on foods that are low in calories and high in vitamins and minerals can help address micronutrient deficiencies, which may be more common than previously thought and linked to the chronic diseases that we see daily. It is worth noting that some foods that are not low in calories are still nutrient dense. Avocados, liver, and nuts come to mind as foods that are high in calories, but they have additional nutrients such as fiber, potassium, antioxidants, vitamin A, iron, and selenium that can still make them an excellent choice if they are part of a well-balanced diet.
I fear that we often underestimate our patients. We worry that not providing them with a list of acceptable foods will set them up for failure. But, in my experience, that list of “good” and “bad” foods may be useful for a week or so but will eventually become lost on the fridge under children’s artwork and save-the-dates.
Patients know that potato chips offer little more than fat, carbs, and salt and that they’re a poor choice for long-term health. What they might not know is that cocktail peanuts can also satisfy the craving for a salty snack, with more than four times the protein, twice the fiber, and just over half of the sodium found in the same serving size of regular salted potato chips. Peanuts have the added bonus of being high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fatty acids.
The best thing that clinicians can do with just a few minutes of time for diet education is to talk to patients about the nutrient density of whole foods and caution patients against highly processed foods, because processing can decrease nutritional content. Our most effective option is to explain why a varied diet with focus on fruits, vegetables, lean protein, nuts, legumes, and healthy fats is beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health. After that, all that is left is to trust the patient to make the right choices for their health.
Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Maintaining Weight Loss With GLP-1s Needs Lifestyle Changes
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.
I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.
There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true.
One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.
I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss.
I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.
When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.
I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.
As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.
Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.
I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.
There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true.
One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.
I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss.
I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.
When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.
I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.
As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.
Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Nearly every patient I start on incretin therapy for weight loss asks me the same question, which is, will I have to stay on this forever? The answer is probably yes, but I think it’s much more nuanced than that because A) forever is a long time and B) I think there are various ways to approach this.
I want people to start just saying, let’s see how this works, because not everyone’s going to lose the same amount of weight or respond in the same way. I say let’s try it, but don’t stop it suddenly. If we decide at some point you don’t need quite the same dose, we can reduce the dose and maybe even reduce the frequency of giving it, but you don’t want to stop cold turkey because you may well regain the weight, and that’s obviously not our desired outcome.
There have been multiple clinical trials in which people started on an incretin hormone, either a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual hormone, and they’ve actually shown that stopping it and then continuing patients on a placebo vs active drug results in continued weight gain over time vs either weight maintenance or weight loss when they remain on the incretin hormone. Clearly, on average, people will regain the weight, but that isn’t always true.
One of the things I think is really important is that, from the get-go on starting on these hormones, people start working with a lifestyle plan, whether it’s working with a coach or an online program. However they approach this, it’s important to start changing habits and increasing exercise.
I can’t say how important this is enough, because people need to increase their physical activity to enhance the benefits of these agents and also to help retain lean body mass. I don’t want people losing a large amount of lean body mass as they go through the process of weight loss.
I set the stage for the fact that I expect people to adhere to a lifestyle program, and maybe losing weight with the medications is going to help them do even better because they’re going to see positive outcomes.
When they get to the point of weight maintenance, I think we need to reinforce lifestyle. I either go down on the dose given weekly or I start having patients take the dose every other week, for instance, as opposed to every week, and then sometimes every month. Depending on the patient, I get them potentially to a lower dose, and then they’re able to maintain the weight as long as they improved their lifestyle along with the changes in the medication.
I tell people we’ll work with the drug, we’ll work with their metabolic needs, that there are many benefits to being on incretin hormone therapy, but I think it’s important that we can do this on an individualized basis. The thing I don’t want to happen, though, is for people to start on it and then stop it, and then start on it and stop it because they may lose weight, regain weight, get side effects, get used to the side effects, stop it, and start it.
As we know, that’s not the best way to do this, and I think it’s not healthy for people to do that either. I know it’s been somewhat problematic with supply chain issues, but hopefully we’ll be able to start these agents, reach the desired outcome in terms of weight loss, and then help patients maintain that weight with a combination of both medication and lifestyle.
Dr. Peters, professor, Department of Clinical Medicine, Keck School of Medicine; Director, University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes, Los Angeles, disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, Becton Dickinson; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo; Medscape; Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, Zafgen, Dexcom, MannKind, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Kidney, Cardiovascular Benefits Seen With GLP-1 RA Drugs in SLE, Lupus Nephritis
WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest.
“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication.
A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.
Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.”
But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”
Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs
Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis.
From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis.
Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure.
Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.
Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02).
In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded.
Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”
Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis.
“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said.
In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen
In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis.
She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs.
After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications.
Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001).
Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.
Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest.
“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication.
A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.
Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.”
But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”
Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs
Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis.
From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis.
Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure.
Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.
Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02).
In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded.
Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”
Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis.
“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said.
In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen
In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis.
She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs.
After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications.
Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001).
Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.
Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest.
“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).
The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication.
A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.
Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.”
But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”
Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs
Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis.
From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis.
Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure.
Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.
Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02).
In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded.
Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”
Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis.
“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said.
In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen
In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis.
She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines.
Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs.
After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications.
Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001).
Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.
Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2024
Fibrosis Risk High in Young Adults With Both Obesity and T2D
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
- Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
- All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
- Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
- There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
- The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
- In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
- The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).
IN PRACTICE:
“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.
LIMITATIONS:
The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
- Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
- All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
- Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
- There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
- The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
- In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
- The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).
IN PRACTICE:
“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.
LIMITATIONS:
The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
- Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
- All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
- Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
- There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
- The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
- In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
- The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).
IN PRACTICE:
“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.
LIMITATIONS:
The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.