User login
TikTok’s fave weight loss drugs: Link to thyroid cancer?
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With #Ozempic and #ozempicweightloss continuing to trend on social media, along with the mainstream media focusing on celebrities who rely on Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss, the daily requests for this new medication have been increasing.
Accompanying these requests are concerns and questions about potential risks, including this most recent message from one of my patients: “Dr. P – I saw the warnings. Is this medication going to make me get thyroid cancer? Please let me know!”
Let’s look at what we know to date, including recent studies, and how to advise our patients on this very hot topic.
Using GLP-1 receptor agonists for obesity
We have extensive prior experience with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, for treating type 2 diabetes and now recently as agents for weight loss.
Large clinical trials have documented the benefits of this medication class not only for weight reduction but also for cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with diabetes. The subcutaneously injectable medications work by promoting insulin secretion, slowing gastric emptying, and suppressing glucagon secretion, with a low risk for hypoglycemia.
The Food and Drug Administration approved daily-injection GLP-1 agonist liraglutide for weight loss in 2014, and weekly-injection semaglutide for chronic weight management in 2021, in patients with a body mass index ≥ 27 with at least one weight-related condition or a BMI ≥ 30.
The brand name for semaglutide approved for weight loss is Wegovy, and the dose is slightly higher (maximum 2.4 mg/wk) than that of Ozempic (maximum 2.0 mg/wk), which is semaglutide approved for type 2 diabetes.
In trials for weight loss, data showed a mean change in body weight of almost 15% in the semaglutide group at week 68 compared with placebo, which is very impressive, particularly compared with other FDA-approved oral long-term weight loss medications.
The newest synthetic dual-acting agent is tirzepatide, which targets GLP-1 but is also a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist. The weekly subcutaneous injection was approved in May 2022 as Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes and produced even greater weight loss than semaglutide in clinical trials. Tirzepatide is now in trials for obesity and is under expedited review by the FDA for weight loss.
Why the concern about thyroid cancer?
Early on with the FDA approvals of GLP-1 agonists, a warning accompanied the products’ labels to not use this class of medications in patients with medullary thyroid cancer, a family history of medullary thyroid cancer, or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. This warning was based on data from animal studies.
Human pancreatic cells aren’t the only cells that express GLP-1 receptors. These receptors are also expressed by parafollicular cells (C cells) of the thyroid, which secrete calcitonin and are the cells involved in medullary thyroid cancer. A dose-related and duration-dependent increase in thyroid C-cell tumor incidence was noted in rodents. The same relationship was not demonstrated in monkeys. Humans have far fewer C cells than rats, and human C cells have very low expression of the GLP-1 receptor.
Over a decade ago, a study examining the FDA’s database of reported adverse events found an increased risk for thyroid cancer in patients treated with exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist. The reporting system wasn’t designed to distinguish thyroid cancer subtypes.
Numerous subsequent studies didn’t confirm this relationship. The LEADER trial looked at liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and showed no effect of GLP-1 receptor activation on human serum calcitonin levels, C-cell proliferation, or C-cell malignancy. Similarly, a large meta-analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes didn’t find a statistically increased risk for thyroid cancer with liraglutide, and no thyroid malignancies were reported with exenatide.
Two U.S. administrative databases from commercial health plans (a retrospective cohort study and a nested case-control study) compared type 2 diabetes patients who were taking exenatide vs. other antidiabetic drugs and found that exenatide was not significantly associated with an increased risk for thyroid cancer.
And a recent meta-analysis of 45 trials showed no significant effects on the occurrence of thyroid cancer with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Of note, it did find an increased risk for overall thyroid disorders, although there was no clear statistically significant finding pointing to a specific thyroid disorder.
Differing from prior studies, a recent nationwide French health care system study provided newer data suggesting a moderate increased risk for thyroid cancer in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes who were taking GLP-1 agonists. The increase in relative risk was noted for all types of thyroid cancer in patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists for 1-3 years.
An accompanying commentary by Caroline A. Thompson, PhD, and Til Stürmer, MD, provides perspective on this study’s potential limitations. These include detection bias, as the study results focused only on the statistically significant data. Also discussed were limitations to the case-control design, issues with claims-based tumor type classification (unavailability of surgical pathology), and an inability to adjust for family history and obesity, which is a risk factor alone for thyroid cancer. There was also no adjustment for exposure to head/neck radiation.
While this study has important findings to consider, it deserves further investigation, with future studies linking data to tumor registry data before a change is made in clinical practice.
No clear relationship has been drawn between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer in humans. Numerous confounding factors limit the data. Studies generally don’t specify the type of thyroid cancer, and they lump medullary thyroid cancer, the rarest form, with papillary thyroid cancer.
Is a detection bias present where weight loss makes nodules more visible on the neck among those treated with GLP-1 agonists? And/or are patients treated with GLP-1 agonists being screened more stringently for thyroid nodules and/or cancer?
How to advise our patients and respond to the EMR messages
The TikTok videos may continue, the celebrity chatter may increase, and we, as physicians, will continue to look to real-world data with randomized controlled trials to tailor our decision-making and guide our patients.
Thyroid cancer remains a rare outcome, and GLP-1 receptor agonists remain a very important and beneficial treatment option for the right patient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High caffeine levels may lower body fat, type 2 diabetes risks
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the results of a new study suggest.
Explaining that caffeine has thermogenic effects, the researchers note that previous short-term studies have linked caffeine intake with reductions in weight and fat mass. And observational data have shown associations between coffee consumption and lower risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
In an effort to isolate the effects of caffeine from those of other food and drink components, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues used data from studies of mainly European populations to examine two specific genetic mutations that have been linked to a slower speed of caffeine metabolism.
The two gene variants resulted in “genetically predicted, lifelong, higher plasma caffeine concentrations,” the researchers note “and were associated with lower body mass index and fat mass, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Approximately half of the effect of caffeine on type 2 diabetes was estimated to be mediated through body mass index (BMI) reduction.
The work was published online March 14 in BMJ Medicine.
“This publication supports existing studies suggesting a link between caffeine consumption and increased fat burn,” notes Stephen Lawrence, MBChB, Warwick (England) University. “The big leap of faith that the authors have made is to assume that the weight loss brought about by increased caffeine consumption is sufficient to reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he told the UK Science Media Centre.
“It does not, however, prove cause and effect.”
The researchers agree, noting: “Further clinical study is warranted to investigate the translational potential of these findings towards reducing the burden of metabolic disease.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity at the University of Exeter (England), emphasized that this genetic study “shows links and potential health benefits for people with certain genes attributed to a faster [caffeine] metabolism as a hereditary trait and potentially a better metabolism.”
“It does not study or recommend drinking more coffee, which was not the purpose of this research,” she told the UK Science Media Centre.
Using Mendelian randomization, Dr. Larsson and colleagues examined data that came from a genomewide association meta-analysis of 9,876 individuals of European ancestry from six population-based studies.
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations in those carrying the two gene variants were associated with a lower BMI, with one standard deviation increase in predicted plasma caffeine equaling about 4.8 kg/m2 in BMI (P < .001).
For whole-body fat mass, one standard deviation increase in plasma caffeine equaled a reduction of about 9.5 kg (P < .001). However, there was no significant association with fat-free body mass (P = .17).
Genetically predicted higher plasma caffeine concentrations were also associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes in the FinnGen study (odds ratio, 0.77 per standard deviation increase; P < .001) and the DIAMANTE consortia (0.84, P < .001).
Combined, the odds ratio of type 2 diabetes per standard deviation of plasma caffeine increase was 0.81 (P < .001).
Dr. Larsson and colleagues calculated that approximately 43% of the protective effect of plasma caffeine on type 2 diabetes was mediated through BMI.
They did not find any strong associations between genetically predicted plasma caffeine concentrations and risk of any of the studied cardiovascular disease outcomes (ischemic heart disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and stroke).
The thermogenic response to caffeine has been previously quantified as an approximate 100 kcal increase in energy expenditure per 100 mg daily caffeine intake, an amount that could result in reduced obesity risk. Another possible mechanism is enhanced satiety and suppressed energy intake with higher caffeine levels, the researchers say.
“Long-term clinical studies investigating the effect of caffeine intake on fat mass and type 2 diabetes risk are warranted,” they note. “Randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess whether noncaloric caffeine-containing beverages might play a role in reducing the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, and Swedish Research Council. Dr. Larsson, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Kos have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BMJ MEDICINE
Will new guidelines widen the gap in treating childhood obesity?
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly one in five children have obesity. Since the 1980s, the number of children with obesity has been increasing, with each generation reaching higher rates and greater weights at earlier ages. Even with extensive efforts from parents, clinicians, educators, and policymakers to limit the excessive weight gain among children, the number of obesity and severe obesity diagnoses keeps rising.
In response to this critical public health challenge, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced new clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of obesity in children and adolescents. Developed by an expert panel, the new AAP guidelines present a departure in the conceptualization of obesity, recognizing the role that social determinants of health play in contributing to excessive weight gain.
As a community health researcher who investigates disparities in childhood obesity, I applaud the paradigm shift from the AAP. I specifically endorse the recognition that obesity is a very serious metabolic disease that won’t go away unless we introduce systemic changes and effective treatments.
However, I, like so many of my colleagues and anyone aware of the access barriers to the recommended treatments, worry about the consequences that the new guidelines will have in the context of current and future health disparities.
A recent study, published in Pediatrics, showed that childhood obesity disparities are widening. Younger generations of children are reaching higher weights at younger ages. These alarming trends are greater among Black children and children growing up with the greatest socioeconomic disadvantages. The new AAP guidelines – even while driven by good intentions – can exacerbate these differences and set children who are able to live healthy lives further apart from those with disproportionate obesity risks, who lack access to the treatments recommended by the AAP.
Rather than “watchful waiting,” to see if children outgrow obesity, the new guidelines call for “aggressive treatment,” as reported by this news organization. At least 26 hours of in-person intensive health behavior and lifestyle counseling and treatment are recommended for children aged 2 years old or older who meet the obesity criteria. For children aged 12 years or older, the AAP recommends complementing lifestyle counseling with pharmacotherapy. This breakthrough welcomes the use of promising antiobesity medications (for example, orlistat, Wegovy [semaglutide], Saxenda [liraglutide], Qsymia (phentermine and topiramate]) approved by the Food and Drug Administration for long-term use in children aged 12 and up. For children 13 years or older with severe obesity, bariatric surgery should be considered.
Will cost barriers continue to increase disparity?
The very promising semaglutide (Wegovy) is a GLP-1–based medication currently offered for about $1,000 per month. As with other chronic diseases, children should be prepared to take obesity medications for prolonged periods of time. A study conducted in adults found that when the medication is suspended, any weight loss can be regained. The costs of bariatric surgery total over $20,000.
In the U.S. health care system, at current prices, very few of the children in need of the medications or surgical treatments have access to them. Most private health insurance companies and Medicaid reject coverage for childhood obesity treatments. Barriers to treatment access are greater for Black and Hispanic children, children growing up in poverty, and children living in the U.S. South region, all of whom are more likely to develop obesity earlier in life than their White and wealthier counterparts.
The AAP recognized that a substantial time and financial commitment is required to follow the new treatment recommendations. Members of the AAP Expert Committee that developed the guidelines stated that they are “aware of the multitude of barriers to treatment that patients and their families face.”
Nevertheless, the recognition of the role of social determinants of health in the development of childhood obesity didn’t motivate the introduction of treatment options that aren’t unattainable for most U.S. families.
It’s important to step away from the conclusion that because of the price tag, at the population level, the new AAP guidelines will be inconsequential. This conclusion fails to recognize the potential harm that the guidelines may introduce. In the context of childhood obesity disparities, the new treatment recommendations probably will widen the childhood obesity prevalence gap between the haves – who will benefit from the options available to reduce childhood obesity – and the have-nots, whose obesity rates will continue with their growth.
We live in a world of the haves and have-nots. This applies to financial resources as well as obesity rates. In the long term, the optimists hope that the GLP-1 medications will become ubiquitous, generics will be developed, and insurance companies will expand coverage and grant access to most children in need of effective obesity treatment options. Until this happens, unless intentional policies are promptly introduced, childhood obesity disparities will continue to widen.
To avoid the increasing disparities, brave and intentional actions are required. A lack of attention dealt to this known problem will result in a lost opportunity for the AAP, legislators, and others in a position to help U.S. children.
Liliana Aguayo, PhD, MPH, is assistant professor, Clinical Research Track, Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University, Atlanta. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Factors linked with increased VTE risk in COVID outpatients
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.
The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
Nearly 400,000 patients studied
Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.
VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.
“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.
The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
Factors linked with high VTE risk
They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2.
The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
Are routine anticoagulants justified?
Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.
“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population
The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.
Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.
Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk
“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.
”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.
Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
Unanswered questions
Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.
However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.
“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.
The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.
Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”
Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.
Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.
The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Treat together: Tackle heart disease and obesity simultaneously
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.
“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.
And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.
Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”
They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results
“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.
The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.
Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m2. In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.
“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently
A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.
Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.
Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.
Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity
Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.
But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.
“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.
The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”
Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
What’s it like to take Ozempic? A doctor’s own story
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With the rising popularity of weight-loss drug injections, I’ve received many questions from patients about the pros, cons, and costs. While Ozempic (semaglutide) is perhaps the best known, it’s technically an agent approved only for type 2 diabetes that has been used off label for obesity. The same substance, semaglutide, is approved for use in obesity, but at a higher dose, under the brand name Wegovy. Alternatives are available, and results will vary depending on the specific agent used and the individual.
Ultimately, I decided to try these new injections for myself. I am not a paid representative for, nor an advocate of, any of these medications; I’m here only to share my personal experience.
In my discussions with patients about weight, I sometimes felt like an imposter. While I was overweight by medical standards, I fortunately had none of the underlying health problems. I wasn’t on medications for blood pressure nor did I have diabetes, but I was counseling people to lose weight and eat better while not always following my own advice.
Since having children and turning 40, my metabolism, like many other women’s, seems to have plummeted. I tried a number of older weight-loss medications, like phentermine and phendimetrazine, under the supervision of medical professionals.
Each time, the efforts worked for a short while, particularly when I followed good portion control and practiced moderate exercise. Once the side effects (that is, tachycardia, palpitations, mood changes, constipation) became intolerable, or I became tired or fearful of being on the medications too long, I’d stop and I would regain some of the weight.
When the newer subcutaneous injectable medications arrived on the scene and I started to talk to my patients about them, I was intrigued by their novel mode of action and seeming benefits.
These medications, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, were first approved for type 2 diabetes, and it soon became apparent that patients were losing significant amounts of weight taking them, so manufacturers conducted further trials in obesity patients without type 2 diabetes.
The first of these, liraglutide, is injected daily and was first approved as Victoza for type 2 diabetes; it later received an additional approval for obesity, in December 2014, as Saxenda.
Semaglutide, another of the new GLP-1 agonists, was first approved for type 2 diabetes as Ozempic but again was found to lead to substantial weight loss, so a subsequent approval of the drug for obesity, as Wegovy, came in June 2021. Semaglutide is injected once a week.
Semaglutide was branded a “game changer” when it was licensed for obesity because the mean weight loss seen in trials was around 15%, more than for any other drug and approaching what could be achieved with bariatric surgery, some doctors said.
These medications work in a different way from the older weight loss drugs, which had focused on the use of amphetamines. The newer medications became very popular because treating obesity helps lower blood glucose, blood pressure, cholesterol, kidney disease risk, and other comorbidities that occur with diabetes. Plus, for most people, there were fewer side effects.
I first tried Saxenda when it arrived on the market, via some samples that our pharmaceutical representative brought, both out of curiosity and to see if it would help me lose the stubborn baby weight. I ended up stopping the daily injections after my second or third week because of nausea and vomiting. I took a break, got a prescription for antinausea medicine, and tried again because it did indeed decrease my appetite. However, when I took my prescription to the pharmacy, my insurance wouldn’t cover it. It happens to doctors, too.
Fast-forward to 2017-2018. The baby weight was still holding on despite lifestyle changes, diet, and exercising. The newer drug classes hit the market, and again we had samples from our reps.
When Ozempic was on backorder, I switched to a low dose of Mounjaro (tirzepatide), a new dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, approved for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, again using it off label as a weekly injection, as it isn’t currently approved for weight loss. However, it does produce significant weight loss and is awaiting approval for obesity.
With these new medications, I noticed that both my patients and I didn’t complain as much about nausea and vomiting, but I did experience stomach upset, constipation, and acid reflux.
The appetite suppression is effective. It slows down the emptying of the gut so I feel full longer. I’ve lost 30 lb with these weekly injections and would like to lose another 20 lb. I follow a routine of reasonable, portion-controlled eating and moderate exercise (30 minutes of cardiovascular activity at least two to three times a week).
Discontinuing the medications may cause rebound weight gain, especially if I’m no longer following a routine of healthy eating and/or moderate exercise. I deal with minimal constipation by taking stool softeners, and I take antacids for acid reflux.
Here’s what I recommend applying when working with patients who have obesity: First, explain how these medications work. Then conduct a health history to make sure these injections are right for them. Patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer can’t take these medications. You also want to monitor use in patients with a history of hypoglycemia so their blood sugar doesn’t drop too low. It’s also important to make sure your patients are able to afford the medication. My husband takes Ozempic for diabetes, and recently we were told that a refill would cost about $1,500 a month, even with insurance. “Covered” doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.
Take a baseline hemoglobin A1c and repeat it after the patient has been on the medication for 2-3 weeks. Also remind them that they can’t rely solely on the medication but need to practice portion control and healthier eating and to exercise more.
For myself, I want to lose those remaining 20 lb or so by eating healthy and being physically active without having to rely on medication for the rest of my life. Research on these medications is still early so we don’t know the long-term effects yet.
As clinicians, I feel it’s okay to be honest with our patients about our own personal struggles to help them understand that they are not alone and that losing weight is a challenge for everyone.
Dr. Swiner is a family physician in Durham, N.C. She reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Causal link found between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
Childhood obesity is a risk factor for four of the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, emphasizing the importance of childhood weight control, according to a collaborative study from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, the University of Bristol (England), and Sun Yat-Sen University in China.
“Our finding is that children who have a bigger body size than the average have increased risks of developing almost all subtypes of adult-onset diabetes, except for the mild age-related subtype,” lead author Yuxia Wei, a PhD student from the Karolinska Institutet, said in an interview. “This tells us that it is important to prevent overweight/obesity in children and important for pediatric patients to lose weight if they have already been overweight/obese,” she added, while acknowledging that the study did not examine whether childhood weight loss would prevent adult-onset diabetes.
The study, published online in Diabetologia, used Mendelian randomization (MR), with data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of childhood obesity and the five subtypes of adult-onset diabetes: latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA, proxy for severe autoimmune diabetes), severe insulin-deficient diabetes (SIDD), severe insulin-resistant diabetes (SIRD), mild obesity-related diabetes (MOD), and mild age-related diabetes (MARD). MR is “a rather new but commonly used and established technique that uses genetic information to study the causal link between an environmental risk factor and a disease, while accounting for the influence of other risk factors,” Ms. Wei explained.
To identify genetic variations associated with obesity, the study used statistics from a GWAS of 453,169 Europeans who self-reported body size at age 10 years in the UK Biobank study. After adjustment for sex, age at baseline, type of genotyping array, and month of birth, they identified 295 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for childhood body size.
The researchers also used data from two GWAS of European adults with newly diagnosed diabetes, or without diabetes, to identify SNPs in 8,581 individuals with LADA, 3,937 with SIDD, 3,874 with SIRD, 4,118 with MOD, and 5,605 with MARD.
They then used MR to assess the association of genetically predicted childhood body size with the different diabetes subtypes.
The analysis showed that, with the exception of MARD, all other adult-onset diabetes subtypes were causally associated with childhood obesity, with odds ratio of 1.62 for LADA, 2.11 for SIDD, 2.76 for SIRD, and 7.30 for MOD. However, a genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult-onset diabetes was found only for MOD, and no other subtypes. “The weak genetic correlation between childhood obesity and adult diabetes indicates that the genes promoting childhood adiposity are largely distinct from those promoting diabetes during adulthood,” noted the authors.
The findings indicate that “childhood body size and MOD may share some genetic mutations,” added Ms. Wei. “That is to say, some genes may affect childhood body size and MOD simultaneously.” But the shared genes do demonstrate the causal effect of childhood obesity on MOD, she explained. The causal effect is demonstrated through the MR analysis.
Additionally, they noted that while “the link between childhood body size and SIRD is expected, given the adverse effects of adiposity on insulin sensitivity ... the smaller OR for SIRD than for MOD suggests that non–obesity-related and/or nongenetic effects may be the main factors underlying the development of SIRD.” Asked for her theory on how childhood body size could affect diabetes subtypes characterized by autoimmunity (LADA) or impaired insulin secretion (SIDD), Ms. Wei speculated that “excess fat around the pancreas can affect insulin secretion and that impaired insulin secretion is also an important problem for LADA.”
Another theory is that it might be “metabolic memory,” suggested Jordi Merino, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen and Harvard University, Boston, who was not involved in the research. “Being exposed to obesity during childhood will tell the body to produce more insulin/aberrant immunity responses later in life.”
Dr. Merino said that, overall, the study’s findings “highlight the long and lasting effect of early-life adiposity and metabolic alterations on different forms of adult-onset diabetes,” adding that this is the first evidence “that childhood adiposity is not only linked to the more traditional diabetes subtype consequence of increased insulin resistance but also subtypes driven by autoimmunity or impaired insulin secretion.” He explained that genetics is “only part of the story” driving increased diabetes risk and “we do not know much about other factors interacting with genetics, but the results from this Mendelian randomization analysis suggest that childhood obesity is a causal factor for all adult-onset diabetes subtypes. Identifying causal factors instead of associative factors is critical to implement more targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies.”
He acknowledged, “There is a long path for these results to be eventually implemented in clinical practice, but they can support early weight control strategies for preventing different diabetes subtypes.”
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. Ms. Wei received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. One coauthor is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Merino reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
Troubling trend as both diabetes types rise among U.S. youth
The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.
The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.
These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.
“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.
Upward trends in both diabetes types
Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.
The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.
The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.
For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).
Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).
The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.
And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes.
Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.
Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.
The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”
“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.
The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.
These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.
“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.
Upward trends in both diabetes types
Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.
The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.
The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.
For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).
Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).
The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.
And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes.
Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.
Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.
The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”
“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The incidence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes continues to rise among children and adolescents in the United States, new data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show.
The SEARCH data demonstrate an increase in the youth population aged 0-19 diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in five representative U.S. centers. Between 2002 and 2018, the annual incidence rose by about 2% per year for type 1 diabetes and 5% per year for type 2 diabetes. The rates of increase for both types were greater among non-White than White youth.
These increases “will result in an expanding population of young adults at risk of developing early complications of diabetes whose health care needs will exceed those of their peers,” write Lynne E. Wagenknecht, DrPH, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues in their article, recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan E. Shaw, MD, and Dianna J. Magliano, PhD, both at the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, write that one of the most “concerning findings” was a 7%-9% annual increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander populations.
“This is a health care crisis in the making. ...Youth and young-adult-onset type 2 diabetes are growing problems leading to poor outcomes and to widening social inequality, adversely affecting a population that might already be disadvantaged. Better information about its natural history, prevention, and management is urgently needed,” they write.
Upward trends in both diabetes types
Overall, 18,169 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and 5,293 with type 2 diabetes were identified over the 17-year study period in SEARCH. After adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, there was a significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidence from 19.5 cases/100,000 population in 2002-2003 to 22.2/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 2.02% annual increase.
The upward trend was even greater for type 2 diabetes, from 9.0/100,000 in 2002-2003 to 17.9/100,000 in 2017-2018, a 5.31% annual increase.
The annual rate of increase in type 1 diabetes was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander youth (4.84%), followed by Hispanic (4.14%) and Black youth (2.93%): All significantly rose over the 17 years.
For type 2 diabetes, significant annual rates of increase were also highest for Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.92%), followed by Hispanic (7.17%) and Black youth (5.99%).
Among youth aged 15-19 years, the overall incidence of type 2 diabetes exceeded that of type 1 diabetes (19.7 vs. 14.6/100,000).
The incidence of type 2 diabetes may be rising because of increased rates of obesity, as well as increased screening of at-risk youth, the authors say.
And, the editorialists note, obesity is also a risk factor for type 1 diabetes.
Peak incidence of type 1 diabetes occurred at age 10 years, while for type 2 diabetes, the peak was at 16 years. There were also seasonal peaks, occurring in January for type 1 diabetes and in August for type 2 diabetes. Those seasonal patterns have been previously reported; they are possibly because of increased viral infections and decreased sun exposure for the former, and increased physical exams in preparation for school in the latter, the authors speculate.
Dr. Shaw and Dr. Magliano note that the reduced incidence after age 16 years “might simply reflect a failure to diagnose,” suggesting that there will likely be an upturn in incidence in the subsequent decade.
The editorialists also point out: “Not only does the long duration of diabetes that youth-onset leads to cause a large burden of fatal and nonfatal complications, but it magnifies intergenerational effects.”
“When type 2 diabetes is already present before pregnancy, birth outcomes are worse, and the long-term metabolic health of the offspring is adversely affected. This does not bode well for the epidemic of diabetes and its complications.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Magliano have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shaw has reported receiving honoraria for lectures and for advisory boards and grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Roche, Mylan, and Zuellig Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY
New insight into preventing antipsychotic-induced weight gain
In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.
Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.
“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.
“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Balancing risks and benefits
Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.
Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note
The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.
The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.
To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.
Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.
The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.
The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.
They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.
The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
Shared decision-making
Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.
The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”
With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.
For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.
Metabolically neutral
Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.
These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.
In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.
With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.
Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.
Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.
Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.
For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.
The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.
The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
Lowest effective dose
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”
Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.
“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”
The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.
Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.
Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.
“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.
“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Balancing risks and benefits
Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.
Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note
The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.
The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.
To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.
Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.
The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.
The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.
They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.
The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
Shared decision-making
Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.
The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”
With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.
For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.
Metabolically neutral
Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.
These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.
In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.
With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.
Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.
Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.
Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.
For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.
The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.
The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
Lowest effective dose
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”
Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.
“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”
The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.
Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first dose-response meta-analysis focusing on antipsychotic-induced weight gain, researchers provide data on the trajectory of this risk associated with individual agents.
Investigators analyzed 52 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) encompassing more than 22,500 participants with schizophrenia treated with antipsychotics. They found that, with the exception of aripiprazole long-acting injectable (LAI), all of the other antipsychotics has significant dose-response effect on weight gain. Furthermore, weight gain occurred with some antipsychotics even at relatively low doses.
“We found significant dose-response associations for weight and metabolic variables, with a unique signature for each antipsychotic,” write the investigators, led by Michel Sabé, MD, of the division of adult psychiatry, department of psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals.
“Despite several limitations, including the limited number of available studies, our results may provide useful information for preventing weight gain and metabolic disturbances by adapting antipsychotic doses,” they add.
The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Balancing risks and benefits
Antipsychotics are first-line therapy for schizophrenia and are associated with weight gain, lipid disturbances, and glucose dysregulation – especially second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome.
Given that people with schizophrenia also tend to have lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors, it’s important to find “a balance between beneficial and adverse effects of antipsychotics,” the investigators note
The question of whether weight gain and metabolic dysregulation are dose-dependent “remains controversial.” The effect of specific SGAs on weight gain has been investigated, but only one study has been conducted using a dose-response meta-analysis, and that study did not address metabolic disturbance.
The investigators conducted a systematic review and a dose-response meta-analysis of fixed-dose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotic-induced weight gain and metabolic disturbance in adults with acute schizophrenia.
To be included in the analysis, RCTs had to focus on adult patients with schizophrenia or related disorders and include a placebo as a comparator to the drug.
Studies involved only short-term administration of antipsychotics (2-13 weeks) rather than maintenance therapy.
The mean (SD) change in weight (body weight and/or body mass index) between baseline and the study endpoint constituted the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including changes in metabolic parameters.
The researchers characterized the dose-response relationship using a nonlinear restricted cubic spline model, with three “knots” located at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of overall dose distribution.
They also calculated dose-response curves and estimated 50% and 95% effective doses (ED50 and ED95, respectively), extracted from the estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic.
The researchers then calculated the weight gain at each effective dose (ED50 and ED95) in milligrams and the weight gain corresponding to the ED95 value in kilograms.
Shared decision-making
Of 6,812 citations, the researchers selected 52 RCTs that met inclusion criteria (n = 22,588 participants, with 16,311 receiving antipsychotics and 6,277 receiving placebo; mean age, 38.5 years, 69.2% male). The studies were conducted between1996 and 2021.
The risk for bias in most studies was “low,” although 21% of the studies “presented a high risk.”
With the exception of aripiprazole LAI, all of the other antipsychotics had a “significant dose-response” association with weight.
For example, oral aripiprazole exhibited a significant dose-response association for weight, but there was no significant association found for aripiprazole LAI (c2 = 8.744; P = .0126 vs. c2 = 3.107; P = .2115). However, both curves were still ascending at maximum doses, the authors note.
Metabolically neutral
Antipsychotics with a decreasing or quasi-parabolic dose-response curve for weight included brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lurasidone, and quetiapine ER: for these antipsychotics, the ED95 weight gain ranged from 0.53 kg to 1.40 kg.
These antipsychotics “reach their weight gain ED95 at relatively low median effective doses, and higher doses, which mostly correspond to near-maximum effective doses, may even be associated with less weight gain,” the authors note.
In addition, only doses higher than the near-maximum effective dose of brexpiprazole were associated with a small increase in total cholesterol. And cariprazine presented “significantly decreasing curves” at higher doses for LDL cholesterol.
With the exception of quetiapine, this group of medications might be regarded as “metabolically neutral” in terms of weight gain and metabolic disturbances.
Antipsychotics with a plateau-shaped curve were asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone LAI, quetiapine IR, and risperidone, with a weight gain ED95 ranging from 1.36 to 2.65 kg.
Aripiprazole and olanzapine (oral and LAI formulations), as well as risperidone LAI and oral paliperidone, presented weight gain curves that continued climbing at higher doses (especially olanzapine). However, the drugs have different metabolic profiles, ranging from 0.88 kg ED95 for oral aripiprazole to 4.29 kg for olanzapine LAI.
Olanzapine had the most pronounced weight gain, in addition to associations with all metabolic outcomes.
For some drugs with important metabolic side effects, “a lower dose might provide a better combination of high efficacy and reduced metabolic side effects,” the authors write.
The findings might “provide additional information for clinicians aiming to determine the most suitable dose to prevent weight gain and metabolic disturbance in a shared decision-making process with their patients,” they note.
The results add to “existing concerns about the use of olanzapine as a first-line drug,” they add.
Lowest effective dose
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said clinicians “not infrequently increase doses to achieve better symptom control, [but] this decision should be informed by the additional observation herein that the increase in those could be accompanied by weight increase.”
Moreover, many patients “take concomitant medications that could possibly increase the bioavailability of antipsychotics, which may also increase the risk for weight gain,” said Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto. He was not involved with this study.
“These data provide a reason to believe that for many people antipsychotic-associated weight gain could be mitigated by using the lowest effective dose, and rather than censor the use of some medications out of concern for weight gain, perhaps using the lowest effective dose of the medication will provide the opportunity for mitigation,” he added. “So I think it really guides clinicians to provide the lowest effective dose as a potential therapeutic and preventive strategy.”
The study received no financial support. Dr. Sabé reports no relevant financial relationships. Three coauthors report relationships with industry; the full list is contained in the original article.
Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. He has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
Keto/paleo diets ‘lower quality than others,’ and bad for planet
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.
The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.
This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.
Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”
Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.
“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.
“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.
To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.
The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.
The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.
The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.
Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.
Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.
The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).
The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).
In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.
Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.
Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”
The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION