User login
Expert discusses which diets are best, based on the evidence
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
Medications provide best risk-to-benefit ratio for weight loss, says expert
Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.
Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications
Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.
Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.
“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.
Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
Newer anti‐obesity medications
Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”
Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”
Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.
Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
Emerging antiobesity medications
Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.
A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
A ‘holistic approach’
When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.
He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.
Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.
“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”
Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.
Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.
Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.
Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications
Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.
Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.
“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.
Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
Newer anti‐obesity medications
Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”
Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”
Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.
Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
Emerging antiobesity medications
Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.
A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
A ‘holistic approach’
When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.
He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.
Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.
“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”
Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.
Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.
Lifestyle changes result in the least weight loss and may be safest, while surgery provides the most weight loss and has the greatest risk. Antiobesity medications, especially the newer ones used in combination with lifestyle changes, can provide significant and sustained weight loss with manageable side effects, said Daniel Bessesen, MD, a professor in the endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
New and more effective antiobesity medications have given internists more potential options to discuss with their patients, Dr. Bessesen said. He reviewed the pros and cons of the different options.
Medications are indicated for patients with a body mass index greater than 30, including those with a weight-related comorbidity, Dr. Bessesen said. The average weight loss is 5%-15% over 3-6 months but may vary greatly. Insurance often does not cover the medication costs.
Older FDA-approved antiobesity medications
Phentermine is the most widely prescribed antiobesity medication, partly because it is the only option most people can afford out of pocket. Dr. Bessesen presented recent data showing that long-term use of phentermine was associated with greater weight loss and that patients continuously taking phentermine for 24 months lost 7.5% of their weight.
Phentermine suppresses appetite by increasing norepinephrine production. Dr. Bessesen warned that internists should be careful when prescribing it to patients with mental conditions, because it acts as a stimulant. Early studies raised concerns about the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients taking phentermine. However, analysis of data from over 13,000 individuals showed no evidence of a relationship between phentermine exposure and CVD events.
“These data provide some reassurance that it could be used in patients with CVD risk,” he noted. Phentermine can also be combined with topiramate extended release, a combination that provides greater efficacy (up to 10% weight loss) with fewer side effects. However, this combination is less effective in patients with diabetes than in those without.
Additional treatment options included orlistat and naltrexone sustained release/bupropion SR. Orlistat is a good treatment alternative for patients with constipation and is the safest option among older anti-obesity medications, whereas naltrexone SR/bupropion SR may be useful in patients with food cravings. However, there is more variability in the individual-level benefit from these agents compared to phentermine and phentermine/topiramate ER, Dr. Bessesen said.
Newer anti‐obesity medications
Liraglutide, an agent used for the management of type 2 diabetes, has recently been approved for weight loss. Liraglutide causes moderate weight loss, and it may reduce the risk of CVD. However, there are tolerability issues, such as nausea and other risks, and Dr. Bessesen advises internists to “start at low doses and increase slowly.”
Semaglutide is the newest and most effective antiobesity drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration, providing sustained weight loss of 8% for up to 48 weeks after starting treatment. Although its efficacy is lower in patients with diabetes, Dr. Bessesen noted that “this is common for antiobesity agents, and clinicians should not refrain from prescribing it in this population.”
Setmelanotide is another new medication approved for chronic weight management in patients with monogenic obesity. This medication can be considered for patients with early-onset severe obesity with abnormal feeding behavior.
Commenting on barriers to access to new antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen said that “the high cost of these medications is a substantial problem, but as more companies become involved and products are on the market for a longer period of time, I am hopeful that prices will come down.”
Emerging antiobesity medications
Dr. Bessesen presented recent phase 3 data showing that treatment with tirzepatide provided sustained chronic loss and improved cardiometabolic measures with no diet. Tirzepatide, which targets receptors for glucagonlike peptide–1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, is used for the management of type 2 diabetes and is expected to be reviewed soon by the FDA for its use in weight management.
A semaglutide/cagrilintide combination may also provide a new treatment option for patients with obesity. In a phase 1b trial, semaglutide/cagrilintide treatment resulted in up to 17% weight loss in patients with obesity who were otherwise healthy; however, phase 2 and 3 data are needed to confirm its efficacy.
A ‘holistic approach’
When deciding whether to prescribe antiobesity medications, Dr. Bessesen noted that medications are better than exercise alone. Factors to consider when deciding whether to prescribe drugs, as well as which ones, include costs, local regulatory guidelines, requirement for long-term use, and patient comorbidities.
He also stated that lifestyle changes, such as adopting healthy nutrition and exercising regularly, are also important and can enhance weight loss when combined with medications.
Richele Corrado, DO, MPH, agreed that lifestyle management in combination with medications may provide greater weight loss than each of these interventions alone.
“If you look at the data, exercise doesn’t help you lose much weight,” said Dr. Corrado, a staff internist and obesity medicine specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., who spoke at the same session. She added that she has many patients who struggle to lose weight despite having a healthy lifestyle. “It’s important to discuss with these patients about medications and surgery.”
Dr. Bessesen noted that management of mental health and emotional well-being should also be an integral part of obesity management. “Treatment for obesity may be more successful when underlying psychological conditions such as depression, childhood sexual trauma, or anxiety are addressed and treated,” he said.
Dr. Bessesen was involved in the study of the efficacy of semaglutide/cagrilintide. He does not have any financial conflicts with the companies that make other mentioned medications. He has received research grants or contracts from Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Novo Nordisk, and consultantship from Eli Lilly. Dr. Corrado reported no relevant financial conflicts.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
What are the healthiest drinks for patients with type 2 diabetes?
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
The Prediabetes Debate: Should the Diabetes Diagnostic Threshold Be Lowered, Allowing Clinicians to Intervene Earlier?
I believe that the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) should be broadened to match the glycemic thresholds currently used for prediabetes. This would eliminate the need for a separate category, the “prediabetes” nomenclature, and allow for earlier therapeutic intervention in patients. Current diabetes diagnostic thresholds do not reflect the latest advancements in T2DM understanding. The latest in T2DM research suggests that intervening and treating prediabetes earlier could potentially offer better clinical outcomes and enhance patients’ quality of life, as cell and tissue damage occurs early and leads to dysfunction prior to a diabetes diagnosis.1 T2DM is a highly complex disease with multifactorial causes beyond hyperglycemia that should be considered, such as hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and autoimmune inflammatory mechanisms that lead to β-cell dysfunction or failure, which results in hyperglycemia.
Prediabetes is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications that can occur early in the progression to frank disease state.1,2 This phase of diabetes also includes insulin resistance, impaired incretin action, insulin hypersecretion, increased lipolysis, and ectopic lipid storage—all of which damage β cells. These dysfunctions are also present in the frank diabetic disease state.3,4 Furthermore, diabetic retinopathy occurs in 8% to 12% of patients with prediabetes, and retinopathy begins earlier than previously thought, with neuroinflammation occurring even before vascular damage.5,6 Unfortunately, these neuro-inflammatory lesions cannot be detected with the typical instruments used in an ophthalmologist’s office.
It is believed that, through the principle of metabolic memory, even a moderate increase or episodic spikes in blood glucose can lead to negative effects in prediabetic patients who are susceptible to T2DM.1,5 Therefore, a lower diabetes diagnostic threshold could allow for earlier, more precise, and personalized therapies based on each patient’s individual risk factors and biomarkers. With a diagnosis of T2DM at the current prediabetes threshold, patients could receive treatment covered by health insurance while in the “prediabetic” state—treatment that would not have been previously approved. Patients should be treated earlier and on an individual basis with counseling on diet and lifestyle changes and antidiabetic agents to reduce glycemic levels, preserve β cells, and reduce cardiovascular [CV] or renal risk, among other complications.6,7
Moreover, the newer agents for treating diabetes such as glucagon-like pepetide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which are also associated with reduction in adverse CV and/or renal outcomes, could be beneficial if administered early in the prediabetic stage of disease.8,9
Early lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions can reduce the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes as well as complications and associated conditions, and even potentially result in remission or a full reversal of diabetes. These “side benefits” of lowering the diabetes diagnostic threshold (over and above glycemic control) make any cost-effectiveness calculations all the more advantageous to individual patients as well as to society.
Given the numerous benefits of earlier intervention for diabetes treatment, I believe a call to re-evaluate the current diabetes diagnostic threshold is in order, as it will do a great service for all patients who are currently at risk for developing T2DM.
Armato JP, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani M, Ruby RJ. Successful treatment of prediabetes in clinical practice using physiological assessment (STOP DIABETES). Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:781-789.
Schwartz SS, Epstein S, Corkey BE, et al. A unified pathophysiological construct of diabetes and its complications. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28:645-655.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(S15–S39):S111-S124.
Brannick B, Wynn A, Dagogo-Jack S. Prediabetes as a toxic environment for the initiation of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2016;241:1323-1331.
Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183-1197.
Sinclair SH, Schwartz SS. Diabetic retinopathy–an underdiagnosed and undertreated inflammatory, neuro-vascular complication of diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:843.
Edwards CM, Cusi K. Prediabetes: a worldwide epidemic. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2016;45:751-764.
Kanat M, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani MA. Treatment of prediabetes. World J Diabetes. 2015;6:1207-1222.
Dankner R, Roth J. The personalized approach for detecting prediabetes and diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2016;12:58-65.
I believe that the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) should be broadened to match the glycemic thresholds currently used for prediabetes. This would eliminate the need for a separate category, the “prediabetes” nomenclature, and allow for earlier therapeutic intervention in patients. Current diabetes diagnostic thresholds do not reflect the latest advancements in T2DM understanding. The latest in T2DM research suggests that intervening and treating prediabetes earlier could potentially offer better clinical outcomes and enhance patients’ quality of life, as cell and tissue damage occurs early and leads to dysfunction prior to a diabetes diagnosis.1 T2DM is a highly complex disease with multifactorial causes beyond hyperglycemia that should be considered, such as hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and autoimmune inflammatory mechanisms that lead to β-cell dysfunction or failure, which results in hyperglycemia.
Prediabetes is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications that can occur early in the progression to frank disease state.1,2 This phase of diabetes also includes insulin resistance, impaired incretin action, insulin hypersecretion, increased lipolysis, and ectopic lipid storage—all of which damage β cells. These dysfunctions are also present in the frank diabetic disease state.3,4 Furthermore, diabetic retinopathy occurs in 8% to 12% of patients with prediabetes, and retinopathy begins earlier than previously thought, with neuroinflammation occurring even before vascular damage.5,6 Unfortunately, these neuro-inflammatory lesions cannot be detected with the typical instruments used in an ophthalmologist’s office.
It is believed that, through the principle of metabolic memory, even a moderate increase or episodic spikes in blood glucose can lead to negative effects in prediabetic patients who are susceptible to T2DM.1,5 Therefore, a lower diabetes diagnostic threshold could allow for earlier, more precise, and personalized therapies based on each patient’s individual risk factors and biomarkers. With a diagnosis of T2DM at the current prediabetes threshold, patients could receive treatment covered by health insurance while in the “prediabetic” state—treatment that would not have been previously approved. Patients should be treated earlier and on an individual basis with counseling on diet and lifestyle changes and antidiabetic agents to reduce glycemic levels, preserve β cells, and reduce cardiovascular [CV] or renal risk, among other complications.6,7
Moreover, the newer agents for treating diabetes such as glucagon-like pepetide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which are also associated with reduction in adverse CV and/or renal outcomes, could be beneficial if administered early in the prediabetic stage of disease.8,9
Early lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions can reduce the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes as well as complications and associated conditions, and even potentially result in remission or a full reversal of diabetes. These “side benefits” of lowering the diabetes diagnostic threshold (over and above glycemic control) make any cost-effectiveness calculations all the more advantageous to individual patients as well as to society.
Given the numerous benefits of earlier intervention for diabetes treatment, I believe a call to re-evaluate the current diabetes diagnostic threshold is in order, as it will do a great service for all patients who are currently at risk for developing T2DM.
I believe that the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) should be broadened to match the glycemic thresholds currently used for prediabetes. This would eliminate the need for a separate category, the “prediabetes” nomenclature, and allow for earlier therapeutic intervention in patients. Current diabetes diagnostic thresholds do not reflect the latest advancements in T2DM understanding. The latest in T2DM research suggests that intervening and treating prediabetes earlier could potentially offer better clinical outcomes and enhance patients’ quality of life, as cell and tissue damage occurs early and leads to dysfunction prior to a diabetes diagnosis.1 T2DM is a highly complex disease with multifactorial causes beyond hyperglycemia that should be considered, such as hyperlipidemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, and autoimmune inflammatory mechanisms that lead to β-cell dysfunction or failure, which results in hyperglycemia.
Prediabetes is associated with micro- and macrovascular complications that can occur early in the progression to frank disease state.1,2 This phase of diabetes also includes insulin resistance, impaired incretin action, insulin hypersecretion, increased lipolysis, and ectopic lipid storage—all of which damage β cells. These dysfunctions are also present in the frank diabetic disease state.3,4 Furthermore, diabetic retinopathy occurs in 8% to 12% of patients with prediabetes, and retinopathy begins earlier than previously thought, with neuroinflammation occurring even before vascular damage.5,6 Unfortunately, these neuro-inflammatory lesions cannot be detected with the typical instruments used in an ophthalmologist’s office.
It is believed that, through the principle of metabolic memory, even a moderate increase or episodic spikes in blood glucose can lead to negative effects in prediabetic patients who are susceptible to T2DM.1,5 Therefore, a lower diabetes diagnostic threshold could allow for earlier, more precise, and personalized therapies based on each patient’s individual risk factors and biomarkers. With a diagnosis of T2DM at the current prediabetes threshold, patients could receive treatment covered by health insurance while in the “prediabetic” state—treatment that would not have been previously approved. Patients should be treated earlier and on an individual basis with counseling on diet and lifestyle changes and antidiabetic agents to reduce glycemic levels, preserve β cells, and reduce cardiovascular [CV] or renal risk, among other complications.6,7
Moreover, the newer agents for treating diabetes such as glucagon-like pepetide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, which are also associated with reduction in adverse CV and/or renal outcomes, could be beneficial if administered early in the prediabetic stage of disease.8,9
Early lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions can reduce the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes as well as complications and associated conditions, and even potentially result in remission or a full reversal of diabetes. These “side benefits” of lowering the diabetes diagnostic threshold (over and above glycemic control) make any cost-effectiveness calculations all the more advantageous to individual patients as well as to society.
Given the numerous benefits of earlier intervention for diabetes treatment, I believe a call to re-evaluate the current diabetes diagnostic threshold is in order, as it will do a great service for all patients who are currently at risk for developing T2DM.
Armato JP, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani M, Ruby RJ. Successful treatment of prediabetes in clinical practice using physiological assessment (STOP DIABETES). Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:781-789.
Schwartz SS, Epstein S, Corkey BE, et al. A unified pathophysiological construct of diabetes and its complications. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28:645-655.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(S15–S39):S111-S124.
Brannick B, Wynn A, Dagogo-Jack S. Prediabetes as a toxic environment for the initiation of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2016;241:1323-1331.
Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183-1197.
Sinclair SH, Schwartz SS. Diabetic retinopathy–an underdiagnosed and undertreated inflammatory, neuro-vascular complication of diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:843.
Edwards CM, Cusi K. Prediabetes: a worldwide epidemic. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2016;45:751-764.
Kanat M, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani MA. Treatment of prediabetes. World J Diabetes. 2015;6:1207-1222.
Dankner R, Roth J. The personalized approach for detecting prediabetes and diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2016;12:58-65.
Armato JP, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani M, Ruby RJ. Successful treatment of prediabetes in clinical practice using physiological assessment (STOP DIABETES). Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:781-789.
Schwartz SS, Epstein S, Corkey BE, et al. A unified pathophysiological construct of diabetes and its complications. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28:645-655.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(S15–S39):S111-S124.
Brannick B, Wynn A, Dagogo-Jack S. Prediabetes as a toxic environment for the initiation of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2016;241:1323-1331.
Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183-1197.
Sinclair SH, Schwartz SS. Diabetic retinopathy–an underdiagnosed and undertreated inflammatory, neuro-vascular complication of diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:843.
Edwards CM, Cusi K. Prediabetes: a worldwide epidemic. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2016;45:751-764.
Kanat M, DeFronzo RA, Abdul-Ghani MA. Treatment of prediabetes. World J Diabetes. 2015;6:1207-1222.
Dankner R, Roth J. The personalized approach for detecting prediabetes and diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2016;12:58-65.
Intermittent fasting plus early eating may prevent type 2 diabetes
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Exercise or neuromuscular stimulation in type 2 diabetes?
Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.
In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.
But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.
In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume.
To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.
A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.
A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.
Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2. Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.
No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).
Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.
The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”
Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.
In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.
But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.
In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume.
To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.
A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.
A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.
Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2. Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.
No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).
Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.
The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”
Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Studies indicate that physical activity improves glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, other data suggest a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality through physical activity.
In the consensus report “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022,” the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, therefore, recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, supplemented with two to three resistance, flexibility, or balance training sessions per week.
But even when such recommendations are integrated into a therapeutic education program, adherence is often transient or partial.
In this context, Michael Joubert, MD, PhD, and his team at Caen (France) University Hospital wondered about neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), a physical treatment routinely used in functional rehabilitation to improve muscle strength and volume.
To answer this question, they conducted a crossover randomized controlled trial called ELECTRODIAB2. The results were presented at the 2023 Congress of the Francophone Diabetes Society.
A few small pilot studies found that NMES improved insulin sensitivity and glycemic control; therefore, it could indeed be an alternative. The metabolic effect of NMES, however, has not been widely studied.
A total of 40 patients were enrolled in ELECTRODIAB2. Of these participants, 35 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 6 weeks without NMES (control, no intervention), electrostimulation on 3 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minute ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES3), and electrostimulation on 5 days per week for 6 weeks (20-minutes ambulatory biquadricipital electrostimulation sessions) (NMES5). The goal was to assess the glucose levels of sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes during these periods. At each session, NMES was applied at the maximum-tolerated intensity.
Data from 32 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 58 ± 10 years, and body mass index was 33.0 ± 4.3 kg/m2. Duration of diabetes was 8.6 ± 5.9 years. Regarding diabetes treatments, 47%, 31%, 9%, and 13% of the patients were taking 0, 1, 2, and 3 oral hypoglycemic agents or glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, respectively.
No significant differences in glucose levels were observed between the three groups. The primary outcome was mean glucose level based on a 6-day continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) recording. Those levels were 181.4 ± 42.5 mg/dL (control, no intervention), 180.6 ± 45.8 mg/dL (NMES3), and 181.1 ± 48.9 mg/dL (NMES5).
Furthermore, secondary outcomes (rates of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia) did not differ between the three groups.
The researchers concluded that, “with regard to the CGM criteria, this crossover randomized controlled trial did not show that the 6-week biquadricipital NMES sessions had any benefit. This finding conflicts with the results of preliminary pilot studies but it does not encourage further research on NMES in this population of patients with early-stage diabetes.”
Therefore, at this point, it does not look like NMES can be recommended as an alternative to physical activity for sedentary patients with type 2 diabetes.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
NSAID use in diabetes may worsen risk for first HF hospitalization
suggests a prospective, controlled study.
Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.
Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.
“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.
But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”
The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.
The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”
In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).
Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”
But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”
The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.
They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.
Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.
The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.
That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.
“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.
“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”
Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a prospective, controlled study.
Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.
Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.
“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.
But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”
The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.
The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”
In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).
Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”
But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”
The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.
They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.
Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.
The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.
That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.
“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.
“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”
Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggests a prospective, controlled study.
Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.
Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.
“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.
But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”
The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.
The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”
In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).
Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”
But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”
The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.
They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.
Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.
The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.
That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.
“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.
“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”
Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
What happens when newer weight loss meds are stopped?
Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.
Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?
Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.
Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
Medications effective but cost prohibitive?
Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.
Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.
Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.
Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.
Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
Stopping equals weight regain
Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.
The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.
There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.
These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.
A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.
Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.
Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?
The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.
However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.
People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.
Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.
Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?
Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.
Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
Medications effective but cost prohibitive?
Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.
Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.
Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.
Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.
Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
Stopping equals weight regain
Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.
The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.
There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.
These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.
A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.
Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.
Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?
The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.
However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.
People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.
Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Some of these medicines are approved for treating obesity (Wegovy), whereas others are approved for type 2 diabetes (Ozempic and Mounjaro). Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has been fast-tracked for approval for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration this year, and in the first of the series of studies looking at its effect on obesity, the SURMOUNT-1 trial, tirzepatide demonstrated a mean weight loss of around 22% in people without diabetes, spurring significant off-label use.
Our offices are full of patients who have taken these medications, with unprecedented improvements in their weight, cardiometabolic health, and quality of life. What happens when patients stop taking these medications? Or more importantly, why stop them?
Although these drugs are very effective for weight loss and treating diabetes, there can be adverse effects, primarily gastrointestinal, that limit treatment continuation. Nausea is the most common side effect and usually diminishes over time. Slow dose titration and dietary modification can minimize unwanted gastrointestinal side effects.
Drug-induced acute pancreatitis, a rare adverse event requiring patients to stop therapy, was seen in approximately 0.2% of people in clinical trials.
Medications effective but cost prohibitive?
Beyond adverse effects, patients may be forced to stop treatment because of medication cost, changes in insurance coverage, or issues with drug availability.
Two incretin therapies currently approved for treating obesity – liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) – cost around $1,400 per month. Insurance coverage and manufacturer discounts can make treatment affordable, but anti-obesity medicines aren’t covered by Medicare or by many employer-sponsored commercial plans.
Changes in employment or insurance coverage, or expiration of manufacturer copay cards, may require patients to stop or change therapies. The increased prescribing and overall expense of these drugs have prompted insurance plans and self-insured groups to consider whether providing coverage for these medications is sustainable.
Limited coverage has led to significant off-label prescribing of incretin therapies that aren’t approved for treating obesity (for instance, Ozempic and Mounjaro) and compounding pharmacies selling peptides that allegedly contain the active pharmaceutical ingredients. High demand for these medications has created significant supply shortages over the past year, causing many people to be without treatment for significant periods of time, as reported by this news organization.
Recently, I saw a patient who lost more than 30 pounds with semaglutide (Wegovy). She then changed employers and the medication was no longer covered. She gained back almost 10 pounds over 3 months and was prescribed tirzepatide (Mounjaro) off-label for weight loss by another provider, using a manufacturer discount card to make the medication affordable. The patient did well with the new regimen and lost about 20 pounds, but the pharmacy stopped filling the prescription when changes were made to the discount card. Afraid of regaining the weight, she came to see us as a new patient to discuss her options with her lack of coverage for anti-obesity medications.
Stopping equals weight regain
Obesity is a chronic disease like hypertension. It responds to treatment and when people stop taking these anti-obesity medications, this is generally associated with increased appetite and less satiety, and there is subsequent weight regain and a recurrence in excess weight-related complications.
The STEP-1 trial extension showed an initial mean body weight reduction of 17.3% with weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg over 1 year. On average, two-thirds of the weight lost was regained by participants within 1 year of stopping semaglutide and the study’s lifestyle intervention. Many of the improvements seen in cardiometabolic variables, like blood glucose and blood pressure, similarly reverted to baseline.
There are also 2-year data from the STEP-5 trial with semaglutide; 3-year data from the SCALE trial with liraglutide; and 5-year nonrandomized data with multiple agents that show durable, clinically significant weight loss from medical therapies for obesity.
These data together demonstrate that medications are effective for durable weight loss if they are continued. However, this is not how obesity is currently treated. Anti-obesity medications are prescribed to less than 3% of eligible people in the United States, and the average duration of therapy is less than 90 days. This treatment length isn’t sufficient to see the full benefits most medications offer and certainly doesn’t support long-term weight maintenance.
A recent study showed that, in addition to maintaining weight loss from medical therapies, incretin-containing anti-obesity medication regimens were effective for treating weight regain and facilitating healthier weight after bariatric surgery.
Chronic therapy is needed for weight maintenance because several neurohormonal changes occur owing to weight loss. Metabolic adaptation is the relative reduction in energy expenditure, below what would be expected, in people after weight loss. When this is combined with physiologic changes that increase appetite and decrease satiety, many people create a positive energy balance that results in weight regain. This has been observed in reality TV shows such as “The Biggest Loser”: It’s biology, not willpower.
Unfortunately, many people – including health care providers – don’t understand how these changes promote weight regain and patients are too often blamed when their weight goes back up after medications are stopped. This blame is greatly misinformed by weight-biased beliefs that people with obesity are lazy and lack self-control for weight loss or maintenance. Nobody would be surprised if someone’s blood pressure went up if their antihypertensive medications were stopped. Why do we think so differently when treating obesity?
The prevalence of obesity in the United States is over 40% and growing. We are fortunate to have new medications that on average lead to 15% or greater weight loss when combined with lifestyle modification.
However, these medications are expensive and the limited insurance coverage currently available may not improve. From a patient experience perspective, it’s distressing to have to discontinue treatments that have helped to achieve a healthier weight and then experience regain.
People need better access to evidence-based treatments for obesity, which include lifestyle interventions, anti-obesity medications, and bariatric procedures. Successful treatment of obesity should include a personalized, patient-centered approach that may require a combination of therapies, such as medications and surgery, for lasting weight control.
Dr. Almandoz is associate professor, department of internal medicine, division of endocrinology; medical director, weight wellness program, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas. He disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Follow Dr. Almandoz on Twitter: @JaimeAlmandoz.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dapagliflozin’s HFpEF benefit tied to lower filling pressure
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
AT ACC 2023
Even small changes in fitness tied to lower mortality risk
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY