Marlene Busko

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

Having more diverse gut bacteria (greater microbiome richness) and specifically a greater abundance of 12 types of butyrate-producing bacteria were both associated with less insulin resistance and less type 2 diabetes, in a population-based observational study from the Netherlands.

Several studies have reported that there is less microbiome diversity in type 2 diabetes, Zhangling Chen, MD, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues note.

Their study also identified a dozen types of bacteria that ferment dietary fiber (undigested carbohydrates) in the gut to produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid, which may play a role in protection against type 2 diabetes.

“The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to comprehensively investigate the associations between gut microbiome composition [and] type 2 diabetes in a large population-based sample … which we adjusted for a series of key confounders,” the researchers write.

“These findings suggest that higher gut microbial diversity, along with specifically more butyrate-producing bacteria, may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, which may help guide future prevention and treatment strategies,” they conclude in their study published online July 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Confirmation of previous work, plus some new findings

The study confirms what many smaller ones have repeatedly shown – that low gut microbiome diversity is associated with increased risks of obesity and type 2 diabetes, Nanette I. Steinle, MD, RDN, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview.

A diet rich in fiber and prebiotics promotes gut biome diversity, added Dr. Steinle, chief of the endocrinology and diabetes section at Maryland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Baltimore.

The findings add to other research, she noted, such as a prospective trial in which a high-fiber diet induced changes in the gut microbe that were linked to better glycemic regulation (Science. 2018;359:1151-6) and a study of a promising probiotic formula to treat diabetes.

“An important next step,” according to Dr. Steinle, “is to provide interventions like healthy diet or specific fiber types to see what can be done to produce lasting shifts in the gut microbiome and if these shifts result in improved metabolic health.”

Natalia Shulzhenko, MD, PhD, said: “Some of associations of taxa [bacteria groupings] with type 2 diabetes reported by this study are new.”

Dr. Shulzhenko and colleagues recently published a review of the role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology that summarized evidence from 42 human studies as well as preclinical studies and clinical trials of probiotic treatments (EBioMedicine. 2020;51:102590).

“Besides adding new microbes to the list of potential pathobionts [organisms that can cause harm] and beneficial microbes for type 2 diabetes,” the findings by Dr. Chen and colleagues “support a notion that different members of the gut microbial community may have similar effects on type 2 diabetes in different individuals,” commonly known as “functional redundancy,” Dr. Shulzhenko, associate professor, Carlson College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pointed out in an email.

Also “in line with previous studies,” the study shows that butyrate-producing bacteria are associated with type 2 diabetes.

She speculated that “these results will probably contribute to the body of knowledge that is needed to develop microbiota-based therapy and diagnostics.”
 

Which gut bacteria are linked with diabetes?

It is unclear which gut bacteria are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Chen and colleagues write.

To investigate this, they identified 1,418 participants from the Rotterdam Study and 748 participants from the LifeLines-DEEP study enrolled from January 2018 to December 2020. Of these participants, 193 had type 2 diabetes.

The participants provided stool samples that were used to measure gut microbiome composition using the 16S ribosomal RNA method. They also had blood tests to measure glucose and insulin, and researchers collected other demographic and medical data.

Participants in the Rotterdam study were older than in the LifeLines Deep study (mean age, 62 vs. 45 years). Both cohorts included slightly more men than women (58%).

Dr. Chen and colleagues identified 126 (bacteria) genera in the gut microbiome in the Rotterdam study and 184 genera in the LifeLines Deep study.

After correcting for age, sex, smoking, education, physical activity, alcohol intake, daily calories, body mass index, and use of lipid-lowering medication or proton pump inhibitors, higher microbiome diversity was associated with lower insulin resistance and a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

A higher abundance of each of seven types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Christensenellaceae, Christensenellaceae R7 group, Marvinbryantia, Ruminococcaceae UCG-005, Ruminococcaceae UCG-008, Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, and Ruminococcaceae NK4A214 group – was associated with lower insulin resistance, after adjusting for confounders such as diet and medications (all P < .001).

And a higher abundance of each of five other types of butyrate-producing bacteria – Clostridiaceae 1, Peptostreptococcaceae, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, Intestinibacter, and Romboutsia – was associated with less type 2 diabetes (all P < .001). 

Study limitations include that gut microbiome composition was determined from stool (fecal) samples, whereas the actual composition varies in different locations along the intestine, and the study also lacked information about butyrate concentrations in stool or blood, the researchers note.

They call for “future research [to] validate the hypothesis of butyrate-producing bacteria affecting glucose metabolism and diabetes risk via production of butyrate.”

The authors and Dr. Shulzhenko have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Steinle has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and conducting a study funded by Kowa through the VA.

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

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

“Purported” weight-loss products –12 dietary supplements and 2 alternative therapies – lack high-quality evidence to back up claims of efficacy, a systematic review by the Obesity Society reports.

Sally Kubetin/MDedge News

Most of the more than 300 published randomized controlled trials in the review were small and short, and only 0.5% found a statistically significant weight loss of up to 5 kg, John A. Batsis, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the journal Obesity.

“Despite the poor quality of these studies with high degrees of bias, most still failed to show efficacy of the product they were testing,” Srividya Kidambi, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues from the Obesity Society’s Clinical Committee pointed out in an accompanying commentary.

“Yet these are the studies that are often used to support manufacturers’ claims of ‘clinically proven’ in their marketing,” they noted.

Most consumers, they continued, are unaware that these nondrug weight-loss products are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, but rather, if their ingredients are “generally regarded as safe,” they are treated as dietary supplements and require little or no testing to show either efficacy or safety.

“Our patients need to become aware that dietary supplements for weight loss are nothing more than a pipe dream, and as clinicians we would do well to talk with our patients and help steer them toward science-based treatments rather than the ‘Wild West’ of dietary supplements that are marketed for weight loss,” Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, coauthor of the review and commentary, told this news organization.

The dietary supplement industry has a strong lobby against legislation for more rigorous requirements for claims, noted Dr. Kahan, of the National Center for Weight and Wellness as well as George Washington University, Washington.

However, “there has to be some level of protection for consumers” who are faced with ads by “healthy skinny people saying this [product] can change your life.”

Clinical providers need to guide patients to “evidence-based interventions to support weight loss such as behavioral weight-loss interventions, [FDA-approved] medications, or bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Batsis, who also coauthored the commentary.

There is a “critical need” for more rigorous trials, and a partnership between researchers, funders, and industry, he added.

According to Dr. Kidambi and colleagues, “the use of these products will continue as long as they are allowed to be marketed with the aforementioned limited federal oversight and there is a lack of access to evidence-based obesity treatments.”

The commentary authors “call on regulatory authorities to critically examine the dietary supplement industry, including their role in promoting misleading claims and marketing products that have the potential to harm patients.”

They also urged public and private health insurance plans to “provide adequate resources for obesity management.”

And clinicians should “consider the lack of evidence for non–FDA-approved dietary supplements and therapies and guide their patients toward tested weight-management approaches.”
 

Subpar evidence, booming industry

“Annual sales of dietary supplements for weight loss are booming with an industry valued at $30 billion worldwide, despite subpar evidence” of efficacy, the commentary authors wrote by way of background.

After the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements was established “to strengthen the knowledge and understanding of dietary supplements by evaluating scientific information, stimulating and supporting research, and educating the public,” they explained.

However, dietary supplements and alternative therapies are endorsed by influencers and celebrities and marketed as a panacea for obesity and weight gain.
 

Literature review finds scant evidence

Consumers may believe that the “clinically proven” claims of efficacy of these “natural” weight-loss treatments have been thoroughly evaluated for safety and efficacy by the FDA, and clinicians lack information to counsel patients about this.

Therefore, although the Office of Dietary Supplements’ work has importantly advanced the science, the review authors wrote, members of the Obesity Society believed it was important to evaluate and perform a qualitative synthesis of the evidence for efficacy of non–FDA-regulated weight-loss supplements and alternative therapies to better inform clinicians and consumers.

From more than 20,000 citations of 53 dietary supplements and alternative therapies promoted for weight loss, the researchers identified 314 randomized controlled trials of 14 products that each had at least 5 randomized controlled trials.

The two types of alternative therapies in the review were mind-body interventions – which included behavioral therapies (for example, mindfulness and stress management), hypnosis, meditation, or massage – and acupuncture.

Several popular and widely used products (for example, human chorionic gonadotropin, raspberry ketones, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, vitamin infusions) did not meet the predefined number of published randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion in the review.

The greatest number of trials were for acupuncture (45 trials), green tea (38), conjugated linoleic acid (31), ephedra with or without caffeine (31), mind-body therapies (22), and calcium and vitamin D (22). There were fewer trials of garcinia and/or hydroxycitrate (15), chitosan (9), phaseolus (7), pyruvate (7), chocolate/cocoa (6), chromium (6), guar gum (5), and phenylpropylamine (5).

Of the 314 studies, only 52 studies (16.5%) demonstrated that the products were efficacious and low risk, and only 16 studies (0.5%) reported a statistically significant between-group weight loss (0.3-4.93 kg).

For more information, in addition to their review and commentary, the authors refer clinicians to a dietary supplement label database.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Batsis reported equity in SynchroHealth. Dr. Kidambi reported being the medical director for TOPS Center for Metabolic Health at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which is supported by TOPS. Dr. Kahan reported serving as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Gelesis, and Pfizer.

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.

“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.

Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.

Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.

Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.

“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.  
 

Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies

Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”

The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment. 

Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
 

Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon

The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.

The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms. 

In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.

“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
 

Waiting in the wings

Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.

The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.

An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.

A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.

And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.

“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
 

Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids

According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”

However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.

Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”

The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”

Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.

Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).

Patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery had 46% lower odds of stroke 1 year later, similar odds of stroke 3 years later, and 22% lower odds of stroke 5 years later, compared with matched control patients, in new research.

purestock/Thinkstock

Michael D. Williams, MD, presented the study findings (abstract A002) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings are “very good news,” even though the protection against stroke declined further out from the surgery, John D. Scott, MD, scientific program chair of the ASMBS meeting, told this news organization.

The investigators matched more than 56,000 patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery with an equal number of similar patients who did not have this surgery, from a large national insurance database, in what they believe is the largest study of this to date.

“Any intervention that decreases your risk of [cardiovascular] events is good news,” said Dr. Scott, a clinical professor of surgery at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, and metabolic and bariatric surgery director at Prisma Health in Greenville, S.C. “And having a 22%-45% chance of reduction in stroke risk is a very worthwhile intervention.”

Asked how this would change the way clinicians inform patients of what to expect from bariatric surgery, he said: “I would advise patients that studies like this show that surgery would not increase your risk of having a stroke.

“This is consistent with many studies that show that the risks of all macrovascular events decrease after the comorbidity reductions seen after surgery.”

According to Dr. Scott, “the next steps might include a prospective randomized trial of medical treatment versus surgery alone for [cardiovascular]/stroke outcomes, but this is unlikely.”

Similarly, Dr. Williams told this news organization that “I would tell [patients] that surgery is an effective and durable method for weight loss. It also can improve comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and hypertension.”

Even with this study, “I’m not sure it’s appropriate to say that bariatric surgery will reduce the risk of stroke,” he cautioned.

“However, as we continue to investigate the effects of bariatric surgery, this study contributes to the greater body of knowledge that suggests that reduction in ischemic stroke risk is yet another benefit of bariatric surgery.”

The assigned discussant, Corrigan L. McBride, MD, MBA wanted to know if the lower odds ratio at 1 year might be because preoperative patient selection might eliminate patients at high risk of poor cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Williams, a resident at Rush Medical College, Chicago, replied that it is difficult to eliminate potential selection bias, despite best efforts, but this study shows that he can tell patients: “Having surgery is not going to increases your risk of stroke.”

“This is an important study,” Dr. McBride, professor and chief of minimally invasive surgery and bariatric surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“It is the first large study to show a decreased [or no increased] risk of stroke 1, 3, and 5 years after bariatric surgery compared to matched patients, and it had enough data to look at stroke as a standalone endpoint,” Dr. McBride said. “It is important too, for patients and their physicians to understand that there is a lower chance of them having a stroke if they have surgery than if they do not.”
 

‘Important,’ ‘good news’ for stroke risk after bariatric surgery

The impact of bariatric surgery on remission of type 2 diabetes is well known, Dr. Williams noted, and other studies have reported how bariatric surgery affects the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events – a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and all-cause death – including a study presented in the same meeting session.

However, a very large sample size is needed to be able to demonstrate the effect of bariatric surgery on stroke, since stroke is a rare event.

The researchers analyzed data from the Mariner (PearlDiver.) all-payer insurance national claims database of patients in the United States.

They matched 56,514 patients with a body mass index over 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI of more than 40 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass during 2010-2019 with 56,514 control patients who did not undergo bariatric surgery.

A year after bariatric surgery, patients in that group had a lower stroke rate than patients in the control group (0.6% vs. 1.2%), and they had close to 50% lower odds of having a stroke (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.61).

Three years after bariatric surgery, there were 44,948 patients in each group; the rate of stroke was 2.1% in the surgery group and 2.2% in the control group, and there was no significant difference in the odds of having a stroke (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).

Five years after bariatric surgery, there were 27,619 patients in each group; the stroke rate was lower in the bariatric surgery group than in the control group (2.8% vs 3.6%), but reduced odds of stroke was not as great as after 1 year (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

Dr. Williams has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McBride and Dr. Scott disclosed that they are speakers/trainers/faculty advisers for Gore. Dr. Scott is also a consultant for C-SATS (part of Johnson & Johnson).