User login
FDA OKs empagliflozin for children with type 2 diabetes
aged 10 years and older.
This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.
Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).
Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.
“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.
“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites
Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.
Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and it continues to rise.
A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.
Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.
At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.
Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.
Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).
“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.
“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
aged 10 years and older.
This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.
Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).
Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.
“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.
“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites
Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.
Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and it continues to rise.
A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.
Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.
At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.
Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.
Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).
“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.
“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
aged 10 years and older.
This approval represents only the second oral treatment option for children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes after metformin; the latter appears to be less effective for pediatric patients than for adults.
Injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists are also available for youth with type 2 diabetes. These include daily liraglutide (Victoza) and once-weekly extended-release exenatide (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise).
Jardiance has been approved for adults with type 2 diabetes since 2014, and Synjardy has been approved since 2015.
“Compared to adults, children with type 2 diabetes have limited treatment options, even though the disease and symptom onset generally progress more rapidly in children,” said Michelle Carey, MD, MPH.
“Today’s approvals provide much-needed additional treatment options for children with type 2 diabetes,” added Dr. Carey, associate director for therapeutic review for the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Type 2 diabetes rising exponentially in children, mainly non-Whites
Type 2 diabetes is rising exponentially in children and adolescents in the United States.
Data from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth study show that the incidence of type 2 diabetes among youth rose by about 5% per year between 2002 and 2015, and it continues to rise.
A more recent study found that a doubling of cases occurred during the pandemic, with youth often presenting with more severe disease. The majority of cases are among non-White racial groups.
Safety and efficacy data for empagliflozin for children came from the Diabetes Study of Linagliptin and Empagliflozin in Children and Adolescents (DINAMO) trial. That trial included 157 patients aged 10-17 years with A1c of 7% or above. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg daily, linagliptin (a DPP-4 inhibitor) 5 mg, or placebo for 26 weeks. Over 90% were also taking metformin, 40% in combination with insulin. All patients were given diet and exercise advice.
At week 26, the children treated with empagliflozin showed an average 0.2 percentage point decrease in A1c, compared with a 0.7-point increase among those taking placebo. Use of empagliflozin was also associated with lower fasting plasma glucose levels compared with placebo.
Side effects were similar to those seen in adults except for a higher risk of hypoglycemia, regardless of other glucose-lowering therapies that were being taken.
Reduction in A1c for participants treated with linagliptin was not statistically significant in comparison with placebo. There was a numerical reduction of 0.34% (P = .2935).
“Across the lifespan, we know that people living with type 2 diabetes have a high risk for many diabetes complications, so it’s important to recognize and treat diabetes early in its course,” Lori Laffel, MD, lead investigator of the DINAMO study, said in a press release from BI.
“These findings are particularly important given the need for more therapeutic options, especially oral agents, to manage type 2 diabetes in young people as, to date, metformin [has been] the only globally available oral treatment for youth,” added Dr. Laffel, chief of the pediatric, adolescent, and young adult section at the Joslin Diabetes Center and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NAFLD increases risk for severe infections
People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are more likely to develop severe infections requiring hospitalization, according to findings from a large Swedish cohort study.
The increased risk was equal to one extra severe infection in every six patients with NAFLD by 20 years after diagnosis, wrote Fahim Ebrahimi, MD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and coauthors.
“Accumulating evidence suggests that NAFLD can affect multiple organ systems, which is not surprising, as the liver has multiple functions – regulating metabolism and being a central organ of the immune system,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Up to a fifth of cells in the liver are immune cells that process numerous antigens and pathogens from the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Ebrahimi noted. “We were intrigued by experimental studies showing that, in NAFLD, many of these key immune cells become dysfunctional at various levels, which may affect disease progression, but at the same time also increase the susceptibility to viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.”
Patients with NAFLD have metabolic risk factors known to increase infection risk, but a smaller study by a different research group had found that NAFLD could independently predispose patients to bacterial infections.
To further explore a connection between NAFLD and infection risk, the researchers looked at data for 12,133 Swedish adults with simple steatosis, nonfibrotic steatohepatitis, noncirrhotic fibrosis, or cirrhosis caused by NAFLD confirmed by liver biopsies performed between 1969 and 2017.
Each patient was matched to five or more contemporary controls from the general population by age, sex, and region of residence. The authors conducted an additional analysis that also adjusted for education, country of birth, and baseline clinical comorbidities, including diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as hospitalization preceding the biopsy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The primary endpoint was severe infections requiring hospital admission. Secondary endpoints included seven prespecified infection subgroups: sepsis; respiratory tract; most gastrointestinal infections; bacterial peritonitis; urogenital; muscle, skin, and soft tissue; and other infections.
Elevated risk at all NAFLD stages
Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 14 years, patients with NAFLD had a higher incidence of severe infections – most often respiratory or urinary tract infections – compared with those without NAFLD (32% vs. 17%, respectively).
Biopsy-confirmed NAFLD was also associated with a 71% higher hazard and a 20-year absolute excess risk of 17.3% for severe infections requiring hospital admission versus comparators. The elevated risk showed up in patients with steatosis and increased with the severity of NAFLD. Simple steatosis saw a 64% higher risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-1.73), whereas patients with cirrhosis saw a more than twofold higher risk, compared with controls (aHR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.92-2.82).
When Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues adjusted for parameters of the metabolic syndrome, they found an independent increased risk for severe infection. For patients with NAFLD, the increased risk may come from greater susceptibility to infections in general or to a more severe course of infections.
“Our study clearly demonstrates the complexity and high disease burden associated with NAFLD,” Dr. Ebrahimi said. “We are beginning to understand the different layers involved and will eventually move away from a liver-centric view to a more holistic view of the disease.”
Clinicians caring for patients with NAFLD need to be aware of the increased risk for infection, Dr. Ebrahimi said. They also should assess their patients’ vaccination status, and seek to control modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes.
Nancy Reau, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, described the study’s message as important.
“Patients with NAFLD and advancing liver disease are at risk for severe infections,” Dr. Reau said. “When we consider the fact that patients with advanced liver disease tend to die from infectious complications, awareness leading to early recognition and efficient treatment is imperative.”
The authors acknowledged the following limitations: only severe infections requiring hospitalization could be captured; whether infection led to decompensation or vice versa among patients with cirrhosis could not be determined; and detailed data on smoking, alcohol, vaccinations, body mass, and other potentially relevant measures were not available.
The Swiss National Science Foundation, Syskonen Svensson Foundation, and Bengt Ihre Foundation provided grants to Dr. Ebrahimi or coauthors. One coauthor disclosed previous research funding from Janssen and MSD. Dr. Reau disclosed receiving research support and consulting fees from AbbVie and Gilead, as well as consulting fees from Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are more likely to develop severe infections requiring hospitalization, according to findings from a large Swedish cohort study.
The increased risk was equal to one extra severe infection in every six patients with NAFLD by 20 years after diagnosis, wrote Fahim Ebrahimi, MD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and coauthors.
“Accumulating evidence suggests that NAFLD can affect multiple organ systems, which is not surprising, as the liver has multiple functions – regulating metabolism and being a central organ of the immune system,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Up to a fifth of cells in the liver are immune cells that process numerous antigens and pathogens from the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Ebrahimi noted. “We were intrigued by experimental studies showing that, in NAFLD, many of these key immune cells become dysfunctional at various levels, which may affect disease progression, but at the same time also increase the susceptibility to viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.”
Patients with NAFLD have metabolic risk factors known to increase infection risk, but a smaller study by a different research group had found that NAFLD could independently predispose patients to bacterial infections.
To further explore a connection between NAFLD and infection risk, the researchers looked at data for 12,133 Swedish adults with simple steatosis, nonfibrotic steatohepatitis, noncirrhotic fibrosis, or cirrhosis caused by NAFLD confirmed by liver biopsies performed between 1969 and 2017.
Each patient was matched to five or more contemporary controls from the general population by age, sex, and region of residence. The authors conducted an additional analysis that also adjusted for education, country of birth, and baseline clinical comorbidities, including diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as hospitalization preceding the biopsy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The primary endpoint was severe infections requiring hospital admission. Secondary endpoints included seven prespecified infection subgroups: sepsis; respiratory tract; most gastrointestinal infections; bacterial peritonitis; urogenital; muscle, skin, and soft tissue; and other infections.
Elevated risk at all NAFLD stages
Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 14 years, patients with NAFLD had a higher incidence of severe infections – most often respiratory or urinary tract infections – compared with those without NAFLD (32% vs. 17%, respectively).
Biopsy-confirmed NAFLD was also associated with a 71% higher hazard and a 20-year absolute excess risk of 17.3% for severe infections requiring hospital admission versus comparators. The elevated risk showed up in patients with steatosis and increased with the severity of NAFLD. Simple steatosis saw a 64% higher risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-1.73), whereas patients with cirrhosis saw a more than twofold higher risk, compared with controls (aHR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.92-2.82).
When Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues adjusted for parameters of the metabolic syndrome, they found an independent increased risk for severe infection. For patients with NAFLD, the increased risk may come from greater susceptibility to infections in general or to a more severe course of infections.
“Our study clearly demonstrates the complexity and high disease burden associated with NAFLD,” Dr. Ebrahimi said. “We are beginning to understand the different layers involved and will eventually move away from a liver-centric view to a more holistic view of the disease.”
Clinicians caring for patients with NAFLD need to be aware of the increased risk for infection, Dr. Ebrahimi said. They also should assess their patients’ vaccination status, and seek to control modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes.
Nancy Reau, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, described the study’s message as important.
“Patients with NAFLD and advancing liver disease are at risk for severe infections,” Dr. Reau said. “When we consider the fact that patients with advanced liver disease tend to die from infectious complications, awareness leading to early recognition and efficient treatment is imperative.”
The authors acknowledged the following limitations: only severe infections requiring hospitalization could be captured; whether infection led to decompensation or vice versa among patients with cirrhosis could not be determined; and detailed data on smoking, alcohol, vaccinations, body mass, and other potentially relevant measures were not available.
The Swiss National Science Foundation, Syskonen Svensson Foundation, and Bengt Ihre Foundation provided grants to Dr. Ebrahimi or coauthors. One coauthor disclosed previous research funding from Janssen and MSD. Dr. Reau disclosed receiving research support and consulting fees from AbbVie and Gilead, as well as consulting fees from Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are more likely to develop severe infections requiring hospitalization, according to findings from a large Swedish cohort study.
The increased risk was equal to one extra severe infection in every six patients with NAFLD by 20 years after diagnosis, wrote Fahim Ebrahimi, MD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, and coauthors.
“Accumulating evidence suggests that NAFLD can affect multiple organ systems, which is not surprising, as the liver has multiple functions – regulating metabolism and being a central organ of the immune system,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Up to a fifth of cells in the liver are immune cells that process numerous antigens and pathogens from the gastrointestinal tract,” Dr. Ebrahimi noted. “We were intrigued by experimental studies showing that, in NAFLD, many of these key immune cells become dysfunctional at various levels, which may affect disease progression, but at the same time also increase the susceptibility to viral, bacterial, and fungal infections.”
Patients with NAFLD have metabolic risk factors known to increase infection risk, but a smaller study by a different research group had found that NAFLD could independently predispose patients to bacterial infections.
To further explore a connection between NAFLD and infection risk, the researchers looked at data for 12,133 Swedish adults with simple steatosis, nonfibrotic steatohepatitis, noncirrhotic fibrosis, or cirrhosis caused by NAFLD confirmed by liver biopsies performed between 1969 and 2017.
Each patient was matched to five or more contemporary controls from the general population by age, sex, and region of residence. The authors conducted an additional analysis that also adjusted for education, country of birth, and baseline clinical comorbidities, including diabetes, obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as hospitalization preceding the biopsy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The primary endpoint was severe infections requiring hospital admission. Secondary endpoints included seven prespecified infection subgroups: sepsis; respiratory tract; most gastrointestinal infections; bacterial peritonitis; urogenital; muscle, skin, and soft tissue; and other infections.
Elevated risk at all NAFLD stages
Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues found that over a median follow-up of 14 years, patients with NAFLD had a higher incidence of severe infections – most often respiratory or urinary tract infections – compared with those without NAFLD (32% vs. 17%, respectively).
Biopsy-confirmed NAFLD was also associated with a 71% higher hazard and a 20-year absolute excess risk of 17.3% for severe infections requiring hospital admission versus comparators. The elevated risk showed up in patients with steatosis and increased with the severity of NAFLD. Simple steatosis saw a 64% higher risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-1.73), whereas patients with cirrhosis saw a more than twofold higher risk, compared with controls (aHR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.92-2.82).
When Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues adjusted for parameters of the metabolic syndrome, they found an independent increased risk for severe infection. For patients with NAFLD, the increased risk may come from greater susceptibility to infections in general or to a more severe course of infections.
“Our study clearly demonstrates the complexity and high disease burden associated with NAFLD,” Dr. Ebrahimi said. “We are beginning to understand the different layers involved and will eventually move away from a liver-centric view to a more holistic view of the disease.”
Clinicians caring for patients with NAFLD need to be aware of the increased risk for infection, Dr. Ebrahimi said. They also should assess their patients’ vaccination status, and seek to control modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes.
Nancy Reau, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, described the study’s message as important.
“Patients with NAFLD and advancing liver disease are at risk for severe infections,” Dr. Reau said. “When we consider the fact that patients with advanced liver disease tend to die from infectious complications, awareness leading to early recognition and efficient treatment is imperative.”
The authors acknowledged the following limitations: only severe infections requiring hospitalization could be captured; whether infection led to decompensation or vice versa among patients with cirrhosis could not be determined; and detailed data on smoking, alcohol, vaccinations, body mass, and other potentially relevant measures were not available.
The Swiss National Science Foundation, Syskonen Svensson Foundation, and Bengt Ihre Foundation provided grants to Dr. Ebrahimi or coauthors. One coauthor disclosed previous research funding from Janssen and MSD. Dr. Reau disclosed receiving research support and consulting fees from AbbVie and Gilead, as well as consulting fees from Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Hold Ozempic before surgery to optimize patient safety?
Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.
at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.
Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.
But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.
“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “
The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.
Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.
In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”
Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.
Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.
Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.
To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.
Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.
A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.
Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.
Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.
Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.
In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.
Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”
The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.
Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.
at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.
Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.
But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.
“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “
The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.
Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.
In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”
Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.
Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.
Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.
To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.
Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.
A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.
Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.
Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.
Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.
In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.
Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”
The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.
Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Semaglutide and related drugs for weight loss have co-opted bariatric medicine in recent months. They have also raised serious questions for hospital-based clinicians who wonder whether the drugs may pose risks to surgery patients undergoing anesthesia.
at this point. Official guidance on best practices has not yet caught up to surging popularity of this and other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists for weight loss.
Ozempic is indicated for treating type 2 diabetes but also is prescribed off-label for weight loss. Other GLP-1 agents from Novo Nordisk, Wegovy (semaglutide) and Saxenda (liraglutide) injections, are Food and Drug Administration–approved for weight loss. These medications work by decreasing hunger and lowering how much people eat. Semaglutide also is available as a once-daily tablet for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus).
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has been working on guidance on the drugs. “It’s a really hot issue now. We are getting emails from our members looking for guidance,” ASA president Michael Champeau, MD, said in an interview.
But despite the interest in how the medications might affect surgery patients and interact with anesthesia, relatively little evidence exists in the literature beyond case studies. So the society is not issuing official recommendations at this point.
“We’re going to just be calling it ‘guidance’ for right now because of the paucity of the scientific literature,” said Dr. Champeau, adjunct clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s probably not going to have words like ‘must; it will probably have words like ‘should’ or ‘should consider.’ “
The ASA guidance could be out in written form soon, Dr. Champeau added.
Meanwhile, whether physicians should advise stopping these medications 24 hours, 48 hours, or up to 2 weeks before surgery remains unknown.
In search of some consensus, John Shields, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Davie Medical Center in Bermuda Run, N.C., asked colleagues on #MedTwitter: “Anyone have guidelines for ozempic around time of surgery? – holding med? – how long NPO?”
Because a full stomach can interfere with anesthesia, clinicians often advise people to stop eating and drinking 12-24 hours before elective procedures (NPO). In the case of once-weekly GLP-1 injections, which can slow gastric emptying, the optimal timeframe remains an open question. The main concern is aspiration, where a patient actively vomits while under anesthesia or their stomach contents passively come back up.
Dr. Shields’ Twitter post garnered significant reaction and comments. Within 4 days, the post was retweeted 30 times and received 72 replies and comments. Dr. Shields noted the general consensus was to hold semaglutide for 1-2 weeks before a procedure. Other suggestions included recommending a liquid diet only for 24-48 hours before surgery, recommending an NPO protocol 24-36 hours in advance, or adjusting the weekly injection so the last dose is taken 5-6 days before surgery.
Anesthesiologist Cliff Gevirtz, MD, has encountered only a few surgical patients so far taking a GLP-1 for weight loss. “And thankfully no aspiration,” added Dr. Gevirtz, clinical director of office-based ambulatory anesthesia services at Somnia Anesthesia in Harrison, N.Y.
To minimize risk, some physicians will perform an ultrasound scan to assess the contents of the stomach. If surgery is elective in a patient with a full stomach, the procedure can get postponed. Another option is to proceed with the case but treat the patient as anesthesiologists approach an emergency procedure. To be safe, many will treat the case as if the patient has a full stomach.
Dr. Gevirtz said he would treat the patient as a ‘full stomach’ and perform a rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure. He would then extubate the patient once laryngeal reflexes return.
A rapid-sequence induction involves giving the medicine that makes a patient go to sleep, giving another medicine that paralyzes them quickly, then inserting a breathing tube – all within about 30 seconds. Cricoid pressure involves pushing on the neck during intubation to try to seal off the top of the esophagus and again minimize the chances of food coming back up.
Giving metoclopramide 30 minutes before surgery is another option, Dr. Gevirtz said. Metoclopramide can hasten the emptying of stomach contents. Administration in advance is important because waiting for the drug to work can prolong time in the operating room.
Is holding semaglutide before surgery a relevant clinical question? “Yes, very much so,” said Ronnie Fass, MD, division director of gastroenterology and hepatology and the medical director of the Digestive Health Center at The MetroHealth System in Cleveland.
Dr. Fass recommended different strategies based on the semaglutide indication. Currently, clinicians at MetroHealth instruct patients to discontinue diabetic medications the day of surgery. For those who take semaglutide for diabetes, and because the medication is taken once a week, “there is growing discussion among surgeons that the medication should not be stopped prior to surgery. This is to ensure that patients’ diabetes is well controlled before and during surgery,” Dr. Fass said.
In patients taking semaglutide for weight loss only, “there is no clear answer at this point,” he said.
Dr. Fass said the question is complicated by the fact that the medication is taken once a week. “It brings up important questions about the use of the medication during surgery, which may increase the likelihood of side effects in general and for certain types of surgery. Personally, if a patient is taking [semaglutide] for weight loss only, I would consider stopping the medication before surgery.”
The ASA was able to act quickly because it already had an expert task force review how long people should fast before surgery last year – before the explosion in popularity of the GLP-1 agonists.
Although it is still a work in progress, Dr. Champeau offered “a peek” at the recommendations. “The guidance is going to look at how far in advance the drugs should be stopped, rather than looking at making people fast even longer” before surgery, he said. “There’s just no data on that latter question.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Low-carb breakfast key to lower glucose variability in T2D?
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.
“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”
“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”
The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?
People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.
And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.
They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.
They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.
The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.
After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.
The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.
The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m2, and A1c of 7.0%.
Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.
Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.
Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.
Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.
The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.
The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.
They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.
The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
Intervention improved CGM measures
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).
Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.
However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).
Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).
In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.
This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Diabetes, cholesterol meds use drops after bariatric surgery
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
compared with patients with obesity who did not have such an operation. However, these declines didn’t extend to cardiovascular medication use.
“In this study, undergoing bariatric surgery was associated with a substantial and long-lasting reduction in the use of lipid-lowering and antidiabetic medications, compared with no surgery for obesity, while for cardiovascular medications this reduction was only transient,” the authors report in research published in JAMA Surgery.
“The results can aid in informed decision-making when considering bariatric surgery for patients with morbid obesity and inform patients and professionals about the expected long-term effects of medication use for obesity-related comorbidities,” they write.
The study “highlights the benefits of mandated databases that report metabolic bariatric surgery, obesity-related comorbidities, and medications,” writes Paulina Salminen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
However, key limitations include a lack of weight data, which is important in light of previous studies showing that suboptimal weight loss after bariatric surgery is linked to a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, note Dr. Salminen, of the department of digestive surgery, University Hospital, Turku, Finland, and colleagues.
Swedish, Finnish obesity data probed
When significant weight loss is achieved, bariatric surgery has been well documented to be associated with improvements in a variety of comorbidities, quality of life, and even life expectancy.
Key comorbidities shown to improve with the surgery include hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes.
However, data are lacking on the association between bariatric surgery and the use of medications for those conditions, particularly compared with people with obesity who don’t have bariatric surgery.
To investigate, first author Joonas H. Kauppila, MD, PhD, of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues conducted a population-based cohort study, evaluating data on 26,396 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in Sweden between 2005 and 2020 or Finland between 1995 and 2018.
Overall, 66.4% of patients were women and their median age was 50.
They were compared with five times as many matched controls with obesity who had not had bariatric surgery from the same population databases, representing a total of 131,980 patients who were matched based on age, country, sex, calendar year, and medication use.
In terms of lipid-lowering medication, rates of use after bariatric surgery decreased from 20.3% at baseline to 12.9% after 2 years and bounced back somewhat to 17.6% after 15 years. Comparatively, in the no surgery group, baseline lipid-lowering medication use of 21.0% increased to 44.6% after 15 years, more than twice the rate of usage in the bariatric surgery group in the same period.
Antidiabetic medications were used by 27.7% of patients in the bariatric surgery group at baseline, with a drop to 10.0% after 2 years, followed by an increase to 23.5% after 15 years. In the no surgery group, the rate of antidiabetic medication use steadily increased from 27.7% at baseline to 54.2% after 15 years, which again was nearly double the rate of antidiabetic medication use in the bariatric surgery group at 15 years.
Meanwhile, cardiovascular medications were used by 60.2% of patients receiving bariatric surgery at baseline, with the rate decreasing to 43.2% after 2 years but increasing to 74.6% after 15 years. Among the nonbariatric surgery patients, use of cardiovascular medications increased from 54.4% at baseline to 83.3% after 15 years.
Causes?
As for the cause of the lack of any decline in use of cardiovascular medications versus other medications in the surgery patients, the authors speculate that the effect “may be related to aging and regain of weight over time after bariatric surgery, a phenomenon caused by hormonal, dietary, physical, and behavioral factors.”
“In contrast, as expected, a gradual increase in the use of all three medication groups was observed over time among the patients treated with no surgery for obesity,” they note.
The lower medication use with bariatric surgery can also translate to economic benefits, the authors add.
“Economically, the long-lasting reductions in medication use for hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular morbidity, and diabetes suggest that surgical treatment of morbid obesity may infer savings in medication expenses for patients, health care, and society,” they report.
“Future research may focus on subgroups that are most likely to benefit from bariatric surgery, including resolution and severity of comorbidities,” they continue.
In their editorial, Dr. Salminen and colleagues note that previous research has shown remission of dyslipidemia in up to 70% of patients after bariatric surgery that was independent of weight loss, which appears to support the sustained reduction in lipid-lowering medications following surgery observed in the current study, suggesting some benefits on lipids beyond weight loss.
Other limitations, however, include that the bariatric surgery group in the study was older and had more comorbidities than those in previous bariatric surgery studies.
“Future studies should assess this in a younger cohort with less disease at baseline and differentiation within cardiovascular disease regarding at least hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure,” the authors conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving grants from the Sigrid Jusélius Foundation, Academy of Finland, Government Research Grant Foundation, and the University of Turku (Finland).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Younger age of type 2 diabetes onset linked to dementia risk
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said. 
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new findings suggest.
Moreover, the new data from the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort also suggest that the previously identified increased risk for dementia among people with prediabetes appears to be entirely explained by the subset who go on to develop type 2 diabetes.
“Our findings suggest that preventing prediabetes progression, especially in younger individuals, may be an important way to reduce the dementia burden,” wrote PhD student Jiaqi Hu of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues. Their article was published online in Diabetologia.
The result builds on previous findings linking dysglycemia and cognitive decline, the study’s lead author, Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.
“Our prior work in the ARIC study suggests that improving glucose control could help prevent dementia in later life,” she said.
Other studies have also linked higher A1c levels and diabetes in midlife to increased rates of cognitive decline. In addition, Dr. Selvin noted, “There is growing evidence that focusing on vascular health, especially focusing on diabetes and blood pressure, in midlife can stave off dementia in later life.”
This new study is the first to examine the effect of diabetes in the relationship between prediabetes and dementia, as well as the age of diabetes onset on subsequent dementia.
Prediabetes linked to dementia via diabetes development
Of the 11,656 ARIC participants without diabetes at baseline during 1990-1992 (age 46-70 years), 20.0% had prediabetes (defined as A1c 5.7%-6.4% or 39-46 mmol/mol). During a median follow-up of 15.9 years, 3,143 participants developed diabetes. The proportions of patients who developed diabetes were 44.6% among those with prediabetes at baseline versus 22.5% of those without.
Dementia developed in 2,247 participants over a median follow-up of 24.7 years. The cumulative incidence of dementia was 23.9% among those who developed diabetes versus 20.5% among those who did not.
After adjustment for demographics and for the Alzheimer’s disease–linked apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, prediabetes was significantly associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.19). However, significance disappeared after adjustment for incident diabetes (HR, 1.09), the researchers reported.
Younger age at diabetes diagnosis raises dementia risk
Age at diabetes diagnosis made a difference in dementia risk. With adjustments for lifestyle, demographic, and clinical factors, those diagnosed with diabetes before age 60 years had a nearly threefold increased risk for dementia compared with those who never developed diabetes (HR, 2.92; P < .001).
The dementia risk was also significantly increased, although to a lesser degree, among those aged 60-69 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.73; P < .001) and age 70-79 years at diabetes diagnosis (HR, 1.23; P < .001). The relationship was not significant for those aged 80 years and older (HR, 1.13).
“Prevention efforts in people with diabetes diagnosed younger than 65 years should be a high priority,” the authors urged.
Taken together, the data suggest that prolonged exposure to hyperglycemia plays a major role in dementia development.
“Putative mechanisms include acute and chronic hyperglycemia, glucose toxicity, insulin resistance, and microvascular dysfunction of the central nervous system. ... Glucose toxicity and microvascular dysfunction are associated with increased inflammatory and oxidative stress, leading to increased blood–brain permeability,” the researchers wrote.
Dr. Selvin said that her group is pursuing further work in this area using continuous glucose monitoring. “We plan to look at ... how glycemic control and different patterns of glucose in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline and other neurocognitive outcomes.”
The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Selvin has reported being on the advisory board for Diabetologia; she had no role in peer review of the manuscript.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
‘Staggering’ weight loss and benefits in body composition with tirzepatide
DUBLIN – , according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.
The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.
Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.
Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.
Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.
“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is staggering weight loss,” remarked Dr. Aronne. “To put it in perspective, mean weight loss in people having Lap-Band surgery is 17%, mean weight loss for sleeve gastrectomy is 25%, and gastric bypass is 33%, which puts the effects of tirzepatide squarely in the realm of bariatric surgery.”
“Something we have sought for decades, we have finally been able to achieve,” he asserted. “I still remember exactly where I was when I saw these results for the first time last April. I knew something big was happening,” declared Dr. Aronne when presenting the latest analyses at the 2023 European Congress on Obesity. Full study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Moderator Gabriella Lieberman, MD, endocrinologist and head of the Israeli Center for Weight Management, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel, welcomed the study but also expressed caution. “It’s very potent, but as we see generally with potent therapies, I think it will change how we look at nutritional advice and the role of the dietician will change. I’m a bit worried the drug is running fast and the support, which is crucial with these treatments, is not keeping up, and we’ll have to deal with some effects later, such as sarcopenia,” she pointed out in an interview.
“We have to treat these drugs as if they are bariatric surgery. I see patients on these types of drugs in clinic and their appetite is so suppressed that they think they can afford to eat things that are unhealthy because they lose weight, and that’s what they want. There has to be a responsible adult looking at what they’re eating, and not just clapping their hands for the weight loss, but ensuring they are not deprived of anything,” she said.
Weight loss and body composition explored
Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m2 (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m2, and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2.
Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m2, greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m2 (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m2 (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m2 (class 3 obesity).
In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).
The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).
The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.
By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category.
“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m2,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”
As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.
“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”
Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported.
Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.
With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.
“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.
Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.
“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”
“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”
The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DUBLIN – , according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.
The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.
Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.
Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.
Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.
“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is staggering weight loss,” remarked Dr. Aronne. “To put it in perspective, mean weight loss in people having Lap-Band surgery is 17%, mean weight loss for sleeve gastrectomy is 25%, and gastric bypass is 33%, which puts the effects of tirzepatide squarely in the realm of bariatric surgery.”
“Something we have sought for decades, we have finally been able to achieve,” he asserted. “I still remember exactly where I was when I saw these results for the first time last April. I knew something big was happening,” declared Dr. Aronne when presenting the latest analyses at the 2023 European Congress on Obesity. Full study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Moderator Gabriella Lieberman, MD, endocrinologist and head of the Israeli Center for Weight Management, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel, welcomed the study but also expressed caution. “It’s very potent, but as we see generally with potent therapies, I think it will change how we look at nutritional advice and the role of the dietician will change. I’m a bit worried the drug is running fast and the support, which is crucial with these treatments, is not keeping up, and we’ll have to deal with some effects later, such as sarcopenia,” she pointed out in an interview.
“We have to treat these drugs as if they are bariatric surgery. I see patients on these types of drugs in clinic and their appetite is so suppressed that they think they can afford to eat things that are unhealthy because they lose weight, and that’s what they want. There has to be a responsible adult looking at what they’re eating, and not just clapping their hands for the weight loss, but ensuring they are not deprived of anything,” she said.
Weight loss and body composition explored
Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m2 (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m2, and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2.
Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m2, greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m2 (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m2 (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m2 (class 3 obesity).
In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).
The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).
The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.
By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category.
“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m2,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”
As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.
“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”
Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported.
Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.
With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.
“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.
Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.
“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”
“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”
The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DUBLIN – , according to the latest results of the SURMOUNT-1 study.
The new analysis showed that up to 63% of participants achieved a reduction in body weight of at least 20%, and all three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) led to substantial, clinically meaningful, and sustained body-weight reduction, compared with placebo at 72 weeks of follow-up.
Mean weight loss was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo). And among participants taking the highest 15-mg dose of tirzepatide, 96%, 90%, and 78% of patients achieved weight reductions of at least 5%, 10%, and 15%.
Tirzepatide is approved in the United States and the European Union for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but is not yet approved for obesity in any country. The manufacturer of tirzepatide, Eli Lilly, intends to seek approval for the drug as an obesity treatment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and in other territories beginning in 2023.
Regardless of baseline BMI category, 9 out of 10 people achieved the greater than or equal to 5% body weight reduction threshold across all doses of tirzepatide, and at the higher doses, over one-third achieved weight loss of 25% or more.
“Similar to lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants on tirzepatide had around a threefold greater percent reduction in fat mass, compared with lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition,” reported SURMOUNT-1 co-investigator Louis Aronne, MD, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“This is staggering weight loss,” remarked Dr. Aronne. “To put it in perspective, mean weight loss in people having Lap-Band surgery is 17%, mean weight loss for sleeve gastrectomy is 25%, and gastric bypass is 33%, which puts the effects of tirzepatide squarely in the realm of bariatric surgery.”
“Something we have sought for decades, we have finally been able to achieve,” he asserted. “I still remember exactly where I was when I saw these results for the first time last April. I knew something big was happening,” declared Dr. Aronne when presenting the latest analyses at the 2023 European Congress on Obesity. Full study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Moderator Gabriella Lieberman, MD, endocrinologist and head of the Israeli Center for Weight Management, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel, welcomed the study but also expressed caution. “It’s very potent, but as we see generally with potent therapies, I think it will change how we look at nutritional advice and the role of the dietician will change. I’m a bit worried the drug is running fast and the support, which is crucial with these treatments, is not keeping up, and we’ll have to deal with some effects later, such as sarcopenia,” she pointed out in an interview.
“We have to treat these drugs as if they are bariatric surgery. I see patients on these types of drugs in clinic and their appetite is so suppressed that they think they can afford to eat things that are unhealthy because they lose weight, and that’s what they want. There has to be a responsible adult looking at what they’re eating, and not just clapping their hands for the weight loss, but ensuring they are not deprived of anything,” she said.
Weight loss and body composition explored
Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that works to activate the GIP and GLP-1 receptors, respectively, found in areas of the brain important for appetite regulation, decreasing food intake, and modulating fat utilization.
The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial included data from 2,539 adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 (class I, II, III obesity) or greater than or equal to 27 kg/m2 (overweight) with one or more weight-related complications, excluding diabetes. At baseline, mean body weight was 104.8 kg, mean BMI was 38.0 kg/m2, and 94.5% of participants had BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2.
Patients were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide (5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg) or placebo for 72 weeks. The primary objective was to show that tirzepatide was superior to placebo in terms of percentage change in body weight and proportion of participants with body-weight reduction of greater than or equal to 5%. The percentage change from baseline body weight and proportion of participants with body weight reduction greater than or equal to 5% were also assessed across BMI categories of greater than or equal to 27 to less than 30 kg/m2, greater than or equal to 30 to less than 35 kg/m2 (class 1 obesity), greater than or equal to 35 to less than 40 kg/m2 (class 2 obesity), and greater than or equal to 40 kg/m2 (class 3 obesity).
In addition, in a retrospective subanalysis, body composition was evaluated in a subpopulation that underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, assessing change from baseline body composition within age subgroups less than 50 years (n = 99), 50-64.9 years (n = 41), and greater than or equal to 65 years (n = 20).
The average weight reduction over the 72 weeks of follow-up was –16.0%, –21.4%, and –22.5% with tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg, compared with –2.4% for participants taking placebo (all P < .001 vs. placebo).
The percentages of participants reaching target weight reductions of greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, greater than or equal to 15%, greater than or equal to 20%, and greater than or equal to 25% were recorded. Over 90% achieved greater than or equal to 5% weight loss, irrespective of BMI and tirzepatide dose, while 55.5% and 62.9% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 20% weight loss, and 35.0% and 39.7% in the 10-mg and 15-mg groups achieved greater than or equal to 25% weight loss, respectively.
By increasing BMI category, in the 10-mg group, weight loss was –18.2 kg, –21.9 kg, –22.0, and –20.7 kg; and in the 15-mg group, weight loss was –18.1kg, –21.2 kg, –24.5 kg, and –22.8 kg. Weight loss in the 5-mg group ranged from –16.6 kg to –15.9 kg from lowest to highest BMI category.
“In the lower-weight categories, there is less weight to lose, so we see a flattening of the curve [with a] maximum of around 18%, so it may be that as we learn more about a drug that is so potent, we recognize that we don’t need to use such a high dose in people with BMI 27-30 kg/m2,” he explained. “It’s the higher BMI categories where we need the higher dose.”
As with lifestyle and surgical treatments, participants taking tirzepatide had around a three times greater percentage reduction in fat mass than lean mass, resulting in an overall improvement in body composition, reported Dr. Aronne.
“We want loss of fat, not lean mass, and we know that we lose around one part lean to three parts fat mass when on a diet and exercise regimen,” he went on to explain. “We see exactly this [balance of lean-to-fat-mass loss] here with 33.9% total fat mass reduction in the treatment group, compared with 8.2% in the placebo group.”
Visceral fat mass reduction was 40% in the treatment group, compared with 7.3% with placebo. “It’s good to see there’s more loss of visceral fat,” said Dr. Aronne. Lean mass loss was 10.9%. “So around three times greater reduction in fat over lean mass loss, resulting in overall improvement of body composition,” he reported.
Also, in older people (≥ 65 years) there was approximately no difference in fat versus lean mass loss, compared with younger people, despite older people being more likely to lose more lean mass.
With respect to patient-reported outcomes based on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Dr. Aronne said that physical functioning scores significantly improved at 72 weeks, compared with placebo, particularly in participants with physical function limitations at baseline.
“In an interesting subanalysis, those with physical limitations at baseline showed a significant improvement versus placebo of over 5% difference [considered significant],” he added.
Safety and tolerability were previously reported in the NEJM article. The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal, and adverse events causing treatment discontinuation occurred in 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6% of participants receiving 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses or placebo, respectively.
“A revolution is coming in the treatment of obesity and cardiometabolic disease, and most physicians cannot grasp this. We’re finally getting the efficacy we’ve been looking for that will produce benefits in every realm,” concluded Dr. Aronne. “These data show that we are now hitting all the secondary endpoints and making our patients better.”
“I think this bodes well. I always envisioned a time when the treatment of obesity would come first before the treatment of cardiometabolic complications of obesity, and I think we’re on the verge of that era with semaglutide, tirzepatide, and the very exciting treatments to come.”
The SURMOUNT-1 trial was sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Foot ulcers red flag for eye disease in diabetes
Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.
Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur.
David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.
For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.
The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.
“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.
In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.
Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.
Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.
Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.
Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.
Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.
“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.
The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.
To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.
Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.
Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur.
David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.
For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.
The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.
“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.
In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.
Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.
Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.
Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.
Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.
Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.
“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.
The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.
To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.
Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sores on the feet can signal problems with the eyes in patients with diabetes.
Prior research and anecdotal experience show that diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy frequently co-occur.
David J. Ramsey, MD, PhD, MPH, director of ophthalmic research at Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said when clinicians detect either condition, they should involve a team that can intervene to help protect a patient’s vision and mobility.
For example, they should ensure patients receive comprehensive eye and foot evaluations and help them optimize diabetes management.
The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, “adds an important dimension” to understanding the association between the conditions, said Dr. Ramsey, who recently reviewed correlations between diabetic foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy and their underlying causes.
“Patients with diabetic foot ulcers appear to receive less attention to their diabetic retinopathy and may receive fewer treatments with eye injections targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), an important driver of progression of diabetic retinopathy,” said Dr. Ramsey, who is also an associate professor of ophthalmology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. He was not involved in the study presented at ARVO 2023.
In the new study, Christopher T. Zhu, a medical student at UT Health San Antonio, and colleagues analyzed data from 426 eyes of 213 patients with type 2 diabetes who had had at least two eye exams between 2012 and 2022; 72 of the patients had diabetic foot ulcers. Patients were followed for about 4 years on average.
Patients with diabetic foot ulcers had a higher percentage of eyes with macular edema on their initial exam (32.6% vs. 28%). By the final exam, the percentage of eyes with macular edema was significantly greater in the group with diabetic foot ulcers (64.6% vs. 37.6%; P < .0001), Mr. Zhu’s group reported.
Eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy progressed to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, the worst grade, at a higher rate in the group with foot ulcers (50.6% vs. 35.6%; P = .03). In addition, patients with foot ulcers were more likely to experience vitreous hemorrhage (55.6% vs. 38.7%), the researchers found.
Despite patients with foot ulcers tending to have worse disease, they received fewer treatments for retinopathy. Those without ulcers received an average of 6.9 anti-VEGF injections per eye, while those with ulcers averaged 4.3.
Foot ulcers may hinder the ability of patients to get to appointments to receive the injections, Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote. “For many patients in our part of the country [South Texas], a lack of transportation is a particular barrier to health care access,” Mr. Zhu told this news organization.
Mr. Zhu’s team conducted their study after noticing that patients with diabetes and foot ulcers who presented to their eye clinics “appeared to progress faster to worse grades of retinopathy” than patients with diabetes who did not have ulcers.
“Similar to how foot ulcers develop due to a severe disruption in blood flow [vascular] and a loss of sensation [neurologic], diabetic retinopathy may have a relation to microvascular disease, neurologic degeneration, and inflammation,” he said.
The findings confirm “that poor perfusion of the eye and foot are linked and can cause ischemic retinopathy leading to the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhages, both serious, vision-threatening conditions,” Dr. Ramsey said.
To some extent, fewer treatments with anti-VEGF agents may account for why patients with foot ulcers have more eye complications, Dr. Ramsey added. “Additional research needs to be done to further dissect the cause and the effect, but it’s a very important finding that we need to increase awareness about,” he said.
Dr. Ramsey and Mr. Zhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ARVO 2023
CGM completes picture of A1c in type 2 diabetes
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES THERAPY
New AACE type 2 diabetes algorithm individualizes care
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.
The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.
Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.
lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.
Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics
Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”
Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.
Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.
Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”
And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.
Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.
Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.
“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.
The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.
Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.
Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”
“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.
Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AACE 2023