Opinion

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’ve worked hard to get rid of paper, or at least minimize it.

I use e-fax for sending and receiving as much as possible. I send scripts and order digitally when I can.

But, 23 years into a paperless practice, the stuff isn’t going away soon. Nor I do I want it to.

For many applications paper is just easier (at least to me) to use. When I have a meeting and know I’ll need to read from notes, I’d much rather have them on paper than a screen, so I print them up. Even a grocery list is easier to scribble down on something and look at as I wander the aisles, rather than navigate to an app every 2 minutes. Paper isn’t susceptible to the whims of battery power, signal strength, being dropped, or software glitches.

I’m also not particularly good at taking notes on a computer. I’m sure most of the current generation of physicians is (or they just use a scribe), but I’m old school. Since day one I’ve had a note pad on my desk, jotting points and observations down on the fly (I use a pencil, too, if anyone remembers what that is). Then, when I have time, I type up my notes from the paper.

I also still have patients who, for whatever reason, want a handwritten prescription. Or sometimes need the legendary “doctor’s note” for work or school. Or need me to fill out forms.

Having grown up with paper, and been through school and residency with paper, it’s not easy to give it up entirely. There’s something reassuring about the tactile nature of flipping pages as opposed to scrolling up and down.

I’m not complaining about its decreased use, though. A digital world is, for the most part, much, much easier. Even now paper is just a transient medium for me. It’s either going to be scanned or shredded (or scanned, then shredded) when I’m done. I don’t want the hassle of paper charts as my repository of information. Currently I have 23 years of charts sitting on a Mac-Mini, and accessible from wherever I am on Earth (as long as I have a decent signal). You definitely can’t do that with paper.

On a larger scale paper has other, more significant, drawbacks: deforestation, pollution, freshwater and petroleum usage, and others. I’m aware of this, use only scratch paper for my scribbles and lists, and buy recycled paper products as much as possible.

Certainly I wish we had less use of it. For one thing, I’d love to be rid of all the junk mail that comes to my house, which far outnumbers anything of importance. I always send it straight to recycling, but it would be far better if it had never been created in the first place.

Realistically, though, it’s still a key part of medical practice and everyday life. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, nor do I really want it to. I’ll leave it to a future generation of doctors to make that break.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve worked hard to get rid of paper, or at least minimize it.

I use e-fax for sending and receiving as much as possible. I send scripts and order digitally when I can.

But, 23 years into a paperless practice, the stuff isn’t going away soon. Nor I do I want it to.

For many applications paper is just easier (at least to me) to use. When I have a meeting and know I’ll need to read from notes, I’d much rather have them on paper than a screen, so I print them up. Even a grocery list is easier to scribble down on something and look at as I wander the aisles, rather than navigate to an app every 2 minutes. Paper isn’t susceptible to the whims of battery power, signal strength, being dropped, or software glitches.

I’m also not particularly good at taking notes on a computer. I’m sure most of the current generation of physicians is (or they just use a scribe), but I’m old school. Since day one I’ve had a note pad on my desk, jotting points and observations down on the fly (I use a pencil, too, if anyone remembers what that is). Then, when I have time, I type up my notes from the paper.

I also still have patients who, for whatever reason, want a handwritten prescription. Or sometimes need the legendary “doctor’s note” for work or school. Or need me to fill out forms.

Having grown up with paper, and been through school and residency with paper, it’s not easy to give it up entirely. There’s something reassuring about the tactile nature of flipping pages as opposed to scrolling up and down.

I’m not complaining about its decreased use, though. A digital world is, for the most part, much, much easier. Even now paper is just a transient medium for me. It’s either going to be scanned or shredded (or scanned, then shredded) when I’m done. I don’t want the hassle of paper charts as my repository of information. Currently I have 23 years of charts sitting on a Mac-Mini, and accessible from wherever I am on Earth (as long as I have a decent signal). You definitely can’t do that with paper.

On a larger scale paper has other, more significant, drawbacks: deforestation, pollution, freshwater and petroleum usage, and others. I’m aware of this, use only scratch paper for my scribbles and lists, and buy recycled paper products as much as possible.

Certainly I wish we had less use of it. For one thing, I’d love to be rid of all the junk mail that comes to my house, which far outnumbers anything of importance. I always send it straight to recycling, but it would be far better if it had never been created in the first place.

Realistically, though, it’s still a key part of medical practice and everyday life. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, nor do I really want it to. I’ll leave it to a future generation of doctors to make that break.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve worked hard to get rid of paper, or at least minimize it.

I use e-fax for sending and receiving as much as possible. I send scripts and order digitally when I can.

But, 23 years into a paperless practice, the stuff isn’t going away soon. Nor I do I want it to.

For many applications paper is just easier (at least to me) to use. When I have a meeting and know I’ll need to read from notes, I’d much rather have them on paper than a screen, so I print them up. Even a grocery list is easier to scribble down on something and look at as I wander the aisles, rather than navigate to an app every 2 minutes. Paper isn’t susceptible to the whims of battery power, signal strength, being dropped, or software glitches.

I’m also not particularly good at taking notes on a computer. I’m sure most of the current generation of physicians is (or they just use a scribe), but I’m old school. Since day one I’ve had a note pad on my desk, jotting points and observations down on the fly (I use a pencil, too, if anyone remembers what that is). Then, when I have time, I type up my notes from the paper.

I also still have patients who, for whatever reason, want a handwritten prescription. Or sometimes need the legendary “doctor’s note” for work or school. Or need me to fill out forms.

Having grown up with paper, and been through school and residency with paper, it’s not easy to give it up entirely. There’s something reassuring about the tactile nature of flipping pages as opposed to scrolling up and down.

I’m not complaining about its decreased use, though. A digital world is, for the most part, much, much easier. Even now paper is just a transient medium for me. It’s either going to be scanned or shredded (or scanned, then shredded) when I’m done. I don’t want the hassle of paper charts as my repository of information. Currently I have 23 years of charts sitting on a Mac-Mini, and accessible from wherever I am on Earth (as long as I have a decent signal). You definitely can’t do that with paper.

On a larger scale paper has other, more significant, drawbacks: deforestation, pollution, freshwater and petroleum usage, and others. I’m aware of this, use only scratch paper for my scribbles and lists, and buy recycled paper products as much as possible.

Certainly I wish we had less use of it. For one thing, I’d love to be rid of all the junk mail that comes to my house, which far outnumbers anything of importance. I always send it straight to recycling, but it would be far better if it had never been created in the first place.

Realistically, though, it’s still a key part of medical practice and everyday life. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, nor do I really want it to. I’ll leave it to a future generation of doctors to make that break.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

AGA has long been a powerful voice in advocating locally and nationally for issues of critical importance to our profession and patients.

While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.

This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.

In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.

In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.

On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.

This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.

In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.

This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.

We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

AGA has long been a powerful voice in advocating locally and nationally for issues of critical importance to our profession and patients.

While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.

This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.

In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.

In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.

On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.

This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.

In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.

This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.

We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

AGA has long been a powerful voice in advocating locally and nationally for issues of critical importance to our profession and patients.

While AGA’s advocacy efforts related to access to colorectal cancer screening are frequently highlighted, this is one aspect of a larger advocacy agenda.

This month, I wish to highlight AGA’s extensive advocacy efforts focused on expanding access to obesity treatment. More than 2 in 5 adults in the U.S. have obesity, and weight management has been shown to be beneficial in patients with comorbid gastrointestinal diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, and GI malignancy.

In 2022, Inside Scope, a podcast by AGA, featured a 6-part seriescalled “Obesity in GI.” In July, Drs. Octavia Pickett-Blakely and Naresh Gunaratnam moderated a Gastro Bites lunch-and-learn session on “Obesity in GI Care – Embracing and Putting It into Practice” in which they discussed models of care delivery supporting obesity management in GI practice.

In November 2022, AGA released “AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Pharmacological Interventions for Adults With Obesity,” (https://shorturl.at/bDNOV) to aid clinicians in appropriately prescribing obesity pharmacotherapy on the front lines of care.

On the policy front, in June, AGA held a Capitol Hill briefing in support of H.R.1577 - Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2021 (TROA), a bipartisan bill that would improve access to obesity treatment and care by expanding coverage under Medicare Part D for FDA-approved obesity pharmacotherapy, as well as related services such as behavioral, nutrition, and other counseling. Please check out our new obesity advocacy toolkit for more information.

This month we update you on important multi-society guidance regarding peri-endoscopic management of GLP-1 receptor agonists. We highlight new AGA Clinical Practice Updates on ostomy management and use of gastric POEM for treatment of gastroparesis, as well as a randomized controlled trial from Gastroenterology showing the effectiveness of hemostatic powder in the management of malignant GI bleeding as compared with standard care.

In our Member Spotlight, we feature gastroenterologist Sameer Berry, MD, MBA, who discusses his role as a physician-entrepreneur seeking to transform GI care delivery through his AGA GI Opportunity Fund–supported company, Oshi Health.

This issue includes our annual supplement, “Gastroenterology Data Trends.” It features a collection of contributions on GI and climate change, long COVID and the GI tract, and the evolution of targeted therapies for C. difficile, among others.

We hope you enjoy this, and all the exciting content included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

The actress Sally Field recently described her struggles with postmenopausal osteoporosis – she was given the diagnosis when she was 60 years old despite being physically active and engaging in activities such as biking, hiking, and yoga. As a slim, White woman in her sixth decade of life, she certainly had several risk factors for osteoporosis.

Osteoporosis, a condition associated with weak bones and an increased risk for fracture, is common in women after menopause. It’s defined as a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of less than or equal to –2.5 on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan, occurrence of a spine or hip fracture regardless of BMD, or a BMD T-score between –1 and –2.5, along with a history of certain kinds of fractures or increased fracture risk based on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX).

Massachusetts General Hospital

Why increased fracture risk in postmenopausal women?

The primary cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis is the cessation of estrogen production by the ovaries around the menopausal transition. Estrogen is very important for bone health. It reduces bone loss by reducing levels of receptor activator of NF-kappa B ligand (RANKL) and sclerostin, and it probably also increases bone formation through its effects on sclerostin.

Around menopause, the decrease in estrogen levels results in an increase in RANKL and sclerostin, with a consequent increase in bone loss at a pace that exceeds the rate of bone formation, thereby leading to osteoporosis.

Many factors further increase the risk for osteoporosis and fracture in postmenopausal women. These include a sedentary lifestyle, lower body weight, family history of osteoporosis, smoking, and certain medications and diseases. Medications that adversely affect bone health at this age include (but are not limited to) glucocorticoids such as hydrocortisone, prednisone, and dexamethasone; letrozole; excess thyroid hormone; certain drugs used to treat cancer; immunosuppressive drugs; certain antiseizure medications; proton pump inhibitors (such as omeprazole); sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and certain other drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes; and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (used to treat anxiety and depression).

Diseases associated with increased osteoporosis risk include certain genetic conditions affecting bone, a history of early ovarian insufficiency, hyperthyroidism, high levels of cortisol, diabetes, hyperparathyroidism, eating disorders, obesity, calcium and vitamin D deficiency, excess urinary excretion of calcium, malabsorption and certain gastrointestinal surgeries, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and frailty.

Furthermore, older age, low bone density, a previous history of fracture, a family history of hip fracture, smoking, and excessive alcohol intake increase the risk for an osteoporotic fracture in a postmenopausal woman.

Bone density assessment using DXA is recommended in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk for low bone density and fracture. Monitoring of bone density is typically initiated about 5 years after the menopausal transition but should be considered earlier in those at high risk for osteoporosis. Women who are aged 70 or older, and those who have had significant height loss, should also get radiography of the spine to look for vertebral fractures.

Optimal nutrition is important for all postmenopausal women. Weight extremes are to be avoided. Although the use of calcium and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women is still debated, the Institute of Medicine recommends that women 51-70 years of age take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-600 IU of vitamin D daily, and that those older than 70 years take 1,000-1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 IU of vitamin D daily.

Women with low vitamin D levels often require higher doses of vitamin D. It’s very important to avoid smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Optimizing protein intake and exercises that improve muscle strength and improve balance can reduce the risk for falls, a key contributor to osteoporotic fractures.
 

Estrogen to prevent fracture risk

Because estrogen deficiency is a key cause of postmenopausal osteoporosis, estrogen replacement therapy has been used to prevent this condition, particularly early in the menopausal transition (51-60 years). Different formulations of estrogen given via oral or transdermal routes have been demonstrated to prevent osteoporosis; transdermal estrogen is often preferred because of a lower risk for blood clots and stroke. Women who have an intact uterus should also receive a progestin preparation either daily or cyclically, because estrogen alone can increase the risk for uterine cancer in the long run. Estrogen replacement has been associated with a 34% reduction in vertebral, hip, and total fractures in women of this age group.

Sally Field did receive hormone replacement therapy, which was helpful for her bones. However, as typically happens, her bone density dropped again when she discontinued hormone replacement. She also had low vitamin D levels, but vitamin D supplementation was not helpful. She received other medical intervention, with recovery back to good bone health.

Raloxifene is a medication that acts on the estrogen receptor, with beneficial effects on bone, and is approved for prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Medications that reduce bone loss (antiresorptive drugs), such as bisphosphonates and denosumab, and those that increase bone formation (osteoanabolic drugs), such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, are used alone or in combination in women whose osteoporosis doesn’t respond to lifestyle and preventive strategies. The osteoanabolic drugs are typically reserved for women at very high risk for fractures, such as those with a BMD T-score ≤ less than or equal to –3, older women with recent fractures, and those with other risk factors. Treatment is typically lifelong.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis can have far-reaching consequences on one’s quality of life, given the risk for fractures that are often associated with hospitalization, surgery, and long periods of rehabilitation (such as fractures of the spine and hip). It’s important to recognize those at greatest risk for this condition; implement bone health monitoring in a timely fashion; and ensure optimal nutrition, calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and exercises that optimize muscle strength and balance. Hormone replacement therapy is a consideration in many women. Some women will require antiresorptive or osteoanabolic drugs to manage this condition. With optimal treatment, older women can live long and productive lives.

Dr. Misra is Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, Mass General for Children; Associate Director, Harvard Catalyst Translation and Clinical Research Center; Director, Pediatric Endocrine-Sports Endocrine-Neuroendocrine Lab, Mass General Hospital; Professor, department of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Sanofi; Ipsen.

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

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Early Monday morning was my usual start-the-week routine: Set up things at the office, update my computer, check the mail, review the week’s schedule.

I was rolling the phones when a text passed by on my screen that a friend had died.

He wasn’t a close friend, but still someone I liked and got along with on the occasional times we ran into each other. Good neurologist, all-around nice person. It was a shock. I’d just seen him a week ago when we crossed paths and briefly chatted about life, the universe, and everything, before going on with our days.

We’d trained together back in the mid-90s. He was 2 years younger than I. I was in my last year of residency when he started the program. I remember being at different gatherings back then with him and his wife, a few with his then-young son, too.

And now he’s gone.

Along with the grief, you think about your own mortality. What can I be doing to hang around longer? To be better? To enjoy whatever time that I have left?

Why a mensch like him?

These are questions we all face at different times. Questions that have no answers (or at least not easy ones). There’s a lot of “why” in the universe.

There are people out there whom you don’t see often, but still consider friends, and enjoy seeing when you encounter them. Sometimes you’re bound by a common interest, or background, or who knows what. You may not think of them much, but it’s somehow reassuring to know they’re out there. And upsetting when you suddenly realize they aren’t.

You feel awful for them and their families. You wish there was a reason, or that something, anything, good will come out of the loss. But right now you don’t see any.

Our time here is never long enough. We make the best of what we have and wish for a better tomorrow.

As Longfellow wrote, the best we can hope for is to leave “footprints on the sands of time.” In medicine, and in everyday life, we strive to do our best for ourselves and for those who need us.

I’ll miss you, friend.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study.

If you run into a health care provider these days and ask, “How are you doing?” you’re likely to get a response like this one: “You know, hanging in there.” You smile and move on. But it may be time to go a step further. If you ask that next question – “No, really, how are you doing?” Well, you might need to carve out some time.

It’s been a rough few years for those of us in the health care professions. Our lives, dominated by COVID-related concerns at home, were equally dominated by COVID concerns at work. On the job, there were fewer and fewer of us around as exploitation and COVID-related stressors led doctors, nurses, and others to leave the profession entirely or take early retirement. Even now, I’m not sure we’ve recovered. Staffing in the hospitals is still a huge problem, and the persistence of impersonal meetings via teleconference – which not only prevent any sort of human connection but, audaciously, run from one into another without a break – robs us of even the subtle joy of walking from one hallway to another for 5 minutes of reflection before sitting down to view the next hastily cobbled together PowerPoint.

I’m speaking in generalities, of course.

I’m talking about how bad things are now because, in truth, they’ve never been great. And that may be why health care workers – people with jobs focused on serving others – are nevertheless at substantially increased risk for suicide.

Analyses through the years have shown that physicians tend to have higher rates of death from suicide than the general population. There are reasons for this that may not entirely be because of work-related stress. Doctors’ suicide attempts are more often lethal – we know what is likely to work, after all.

But a focus on physicians fails to acknowledge the much larger population of people who work in health care, are less well-compensated, have less autonomy, and do not hold as respected a position in society. And, according to this paper in JAMA, it is those people who may be suffering most of all.

The study is a nationally representative sample based on the 2008 American Community Survey. Records were linked to the National Death Index through 2019.

Survey respondents were classified into five categories of health care worker, as you can see here. And 1,666,000 non–health care workers served as the control group.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.

Here are five things to know about the role of agonists in the management of obesity.

1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.

The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.

Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).

2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.

In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.

3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.

Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).

4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.

In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.

A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.

5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.

In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.

Here are five things to know about the role of agonists in the management of obesity.

1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.

The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.

Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).

2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.

In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.

3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.

Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).

4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.

In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.

A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.

5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.

In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The complex pathophysiology of obesity requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes lifestyle and medical interventions for successful management. Antiobesity medications (AOMs) have emerged as a powerful and life-changing tool for many individuals with obesity who are unable to sustain long-term weight loss through lifestyle changes alone. As with other chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, the goal of decades of research has been to develop antiobesity medications with long-term efficacy and safety. Recent groundbreaking findings from a phase 2 trial show immense potential for a new AOM.

Here are five things to know about the role of agonists in the management of obesity.

1. Gut hormone physiology informs the development of AOMs.

The three hormones associated with obesity or diabetes are glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), and glucagon. GLP-1, a peptide released from the intestines in response to food ingestion, increases insulin production, reduces gut motility, and suppresses appetite. GIP is also an intestinal hormone that increases meal-stimulated insulin production and additionally facilitates lipolysis. Glucagon is known to increase hepatic glucose output but will also increase insulin secretion in the setting of hyperglycemia. Glucagon also promotes lipolysis.

Though these hormones are more commonly thought of as incretins, gut hormones that stimulate postprandial insulin secretion, their role in energy physiology is more diverse. Because of multiple mechanisms of action, incretins are increasingly referred to as nutrient-stimulated hormones (NuSH), a term which encompasses other peptides with therapeutic potential (e.g., amylin, oxyntomodulin, peptide tyrosine–tyrosine).

2. Studies have shown that NuSH therapies are highly effective AOMs.

In 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for the treatment of obesity. Clinical trials demonstrating an average weight loss of 15% in patients taking semaglutide ushered in a new era of AOMs associated with significant weight loss that not only improve disease activity but also have the potential to achieve diabetes remission. Recent findings from the OASIS I trial demonstrated an average weight loss of 15.1% from baseline in patients treated with oral semaglutide for 68 weeks. Medical societies, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, recommend 10%-15% weight loss to fully treat weight-related comorbidities like type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2022, tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonist, demonstrated an average weight loss of 22.5% in phase 3 of the SURMOUNT-1 trial for obesity – a weight loss approaching that of some bariatric surgeries.

3. Clinical trial data show that the novel triple agonist retatrutide induces significant weight loss.

Preclinical studies on the newest NuSH therapy, triple GLP-1–GIP–glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, showed predominant activity at the GIP receptor, with less GLP-1– and glucagon-receptor agonism than that of endogenous GLP-1 and GIP. Results from a phase 2 trial published in June 2023 showed a weight loss of 24% at 48 weeks in adults with obesity treated with retatrutide, which is the greatest weight loss reported in an obesity trial so far. Moreover, for the first time in obesity pharmacotherapy research, 100% of participants achieved clinically significant weight loss (defined as ≥ 5% of baseline weight).

4. Retatrutide may improve lipid metabolism.

In the phase 2 trial, retatrutide reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by approximately 20%. This degree of reduced plasma LDL-C is dramatic in weight loss studies. Typically, weight loss significantly reduces triglyceride levels, increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and has a modest effect on LDL-C reduction of about 5%.

A 20% reduction in LDL-C with retatrutide is hypothesis generating. Preclinical studies have shown glucagon to be an important regulator of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 degradation, with the lack of glucagon resulting in increased PCSK9 levels, decreased LDL receptors, and increased plasma LDL; conversely, treatment with glucagon decreased plasma LDL.

5. The long-term safety of retatrutide still needs to be determined.

In the 48-week phase 2 trial, retatrutide was observed to have a side-effect profile largely similar to other NuSH therapies (e.g., semaglutide 2.4 mg, tirzepatide), with a predominance of gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and constipation. However, side effects potentially unique to retatrutide also emerged. Cutaneous hyperesthesia and skin sensitivity were reported in 7% of participants in the retatrutide group vs. 1% in the placebo group; none of these effects were associated with physical skin findings. Of note, 17 out of 198 (9%) participants in the retatrutide group developed cardiac arrhythmia vs. two out of 70 (3%) in the placebo group. There was no consistent pattern of arrhythmia type (e.g., supraventricular, ventricular) observed, and some of these events were reported as “palpitations” or “increased heart rate” without further detail. Phase 3 clinical trial data will provide further insight into the long-term safety of retatrutide.

Dr. Tchang is assistant professor of clinical medicine, division of endocrinology, Weill Cornell Medicine and physician, department of medicine, New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, both in New York. She has disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.

Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.

The comprehensive guideline cemented the fact that our primary goal in type 2 diabetes management is a reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality, rather than the glucocentric goals that have been followed previously. Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.

The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.

Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.

Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.

For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.

There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.

Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.

The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.

The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.

For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.

Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.

Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.

Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.

In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.

Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.

The comprehensive guideline cemented the fact that our primary goal in type 2 diabetes management is a reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality, rather than the glucocentric goals that have been followed previously. Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.

The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.

Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.

Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.

For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.

There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.

Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.

The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.

The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.

For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.

Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.

Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.

Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.

In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.

Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.

The comprehensive guideline cemented the fact that our primary goal in type 2 diabetes management is a reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality, rather than the glucocentric goals that have been followed previously. Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.

The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.

Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.

Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.

For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.

There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.

Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.

The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.

The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.

For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.

Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.

Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.

Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.

In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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