Clinical Endocrinology News

A novel triple agonist to receptors for three nutrient-stimulated hormones led to weight loss as high as 24% among people with overweight or obesity but who did not have type 2 diabetes when used at the highest tested dose for 48 weeks. The results are from a phase 2 study of retatrutide that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2023 Aug 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2301972).

This level of weight loss is “unprecedented” for a medication administered for 48 weeks, Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

The findings “offer further optimism ... that effective pharmacologic management of obesity and related disorders is possible,” wrote Dr. Patti, a principal investigator at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

The study randomly assigned 338 adults with obesity or overweight – a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 27 kg/m² – and at least one weight-related complication to receive either weekly subcutaneous injections of retatrutide in any of six dose regimens or placebo over 48 weeks. The primary outcome was weight change from baseline after 24 weeks.

The highest dose of retatrutide safely produced an average 17.5% drop from baseline weight, compared with an average 1.6% reduction in the placebo group, after 24 weeks, a significant difference.

After 48 weeks, the highest retatrutide dose safely cut baseline weight by an average of 24.2%, compared with an average 2.1% drop among placebo control patients, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, and her coauthors wrote in their report. Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-response pattern.
 

Weight losses never before seen

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said when she discussed these findings in a press conference at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego in late June.

A separate presentation at the ADA meeting documented unprecedented weight loss levels in a study of 281 people with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who formally presented the results from the study of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes at the ADA meeting.

The mechanism behind retatrutide’s potent weight-loss effect seems likely tied to its action on three human receptors that naturally respond to three nutrient-stimulated hormones that control appetite, metabolism, fat mobilization, and related functions.

The three hormones that the retatrutide molecule simultaneously mimics are glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), such as agents in the class of GLP-1 agonists that includes liraglutide (Victoza/Saxenda) and semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy); the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the receptor that is also activated by tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual-incretin receptor agonist that mimics both GLP-1 and GIP; and glucagon. Survodutide is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist in phase 2 development.

Retatrutide is currently unique among agents with reported clinical results by having agonist effects on the receptors for all three of these hormones, a property that led Dr. Patti to call retatrutide a “triple G” hormone-receptor agonist in her editorial.
 

Triple agonist has added effect on liver fat clearance

The glucagon-receptor agonism appears to give retatrutide added effects beyond those of the GLP-1 agonists or GLP-1/GIP dual agonists that are increasingly used in U.S. practice.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of the no diabetes/Jastreboff study (but that was not included in the NEJM report) showed that at both 8-mg and 12-mg weekly doses, 24 weeks of retatrutide produced complete resolution of excess liver fat (hepatic steatosis) in about 80% of the people eligible for the analysis (those whose liver volume was at least 10% fat at study entry).

That percentage increased to about 90% of people receiving these doses after 48 weeks, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, reported during a separate presentation at the ADA meeting.

“When you add glucagon activity, liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” observed Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The average age of the participants in the new study of the use of retatrutide for those with obesity/overweight but not diabetes was 48 years. By design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Treatment with retatrutide was also significantly associated with improvements in several cardiometabolic measures in exploratory analyses, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure, A1c, fasting glucose, insulin, and some (but not all) lipids, Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors reported in the NEJM article.

The safety profile of retatrutide was consistent with reported phase 1 findings for the agent among people with type 2 diabetes and resembled the safety profiles of other agents based on GLP-1 or GIP–GLP-1 mimicry for the treatment of type 2 diabetes or obesity.

The most frequently reported adverse events from retatrutide were transient, mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events. They occurred primarily during dose escalation. Discontinuation of retatrutide or placebo because of adverse events occurred in 6% to 16% of the participants who received retatrutide and in none of the participants who received placebo.

Lilly, the company developing retatrutide, previously announced the launch of four phase 3 trials to gather further data on retatrutide for use in a marketing-approval application to the Food and Drug Administration.

The four trials – TRIUMPH-1, TRIUMPH-2, TRIUMPH-3, and TRIUMPH-4 – are evaluating the safety and efficacy of retatrutide for chronic weight management for those with obesity or overweight, including those who also have obstructive sleep apnea, knee osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The study was sponsored by Lilly, the company developing retatrutide. Dr. Patti has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Hanmi, and MBX. She has received funding from Dexcom and has been a monitor for a trial funded by Fractyl. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with Lilly as well as other companies.
 

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

A novel triple agonist to receptors for three nutrient-stimulated hormones led to weight loss as high as 24% among people with overweight or obesity but who did not have type 2 diabetes when used at the highest tested dose for 48 weeks. The results are from a phase 2 study of retatrutide that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2023 Aug 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2301972).

This level of weight loss is “unprecedented” for a medication administered for 48 weeks, Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

The findings “offer further optimism ... that effective pharmacologic management of obesity and related disorders is possible,” wrote Dr. Patti, a principal investigator at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

The study randomly assigned 338 adults with obesity or overweight – a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 27 kg/m² – and at least one weight-related complication to receive either weekly subcutaneous injections of retatrutide in any of six dose regimens or placebo over 48 weeks. The primary outcome was weight change from baseline after 24 weeks.

The highest dose of retatrutide safely produced an average 17.5% drop from baseline weight, compared with an average 1.6% reduction in the placebo group, after 24 weeks, a significant difference.

After 48 weeks, the highest retatrutide dose safely cut baseline weight by an average of 24.2%, compared with an average 2.1% drop among placebo control patients, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, and her coauthors wrote in their report. Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-response pattern.
 

Weight losses never before seen

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said when she discussed these findings in a press conference at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego in late June.

A separate presentation at the ADA meeting documented unprecedented weight loss levels in a study of 281 people with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who formally presented the results from the study of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes at the ADA meeting.

The mechanism behind retatrutide’s potent weight-loss effect seems likely tied to its action on three human receptors that naturally respond to three nutrient-stimulated hormones that control appetite, metabolism, fat mobilization, and related functions.

The three hormones that the retatrutide molecule simultaneously mimics are glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), such as agents in the class of GLP-1 agonists that includes liraglutide (Victoza/Saxenda) and semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy); the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the receptor that is also activated by tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual-incretin receptor agonist that mimics both GLP-1 and GIP; and glucagon. Survodutide is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist in phase 2 development.

Retatrutide is currently unique among agents with reported clinical results by having agonist effects on the receptors for all three of these hormones, a property that led Dr. Patti to call retatrutide a “triple G” hormone-receptor agonist in her editorial.
 

Triple agonist has added effect on liver fat clearance

The glucagon-receptor agonism appears to give retatrutide added effects beyond those of the GLP-1 agonists or GLP-1/GIP dual agonists that are increasingly used in U.S. practice.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of the no diabetes/Jastreboff study (but that was not included in the NEJM report) showed that at both 8-mg and 12-mg weekly doses, 24 weeks of retatrutide produced complete resolution of excess liver fat (hepatic steatosis) in about 80% of the people eligible for the analysis (those whose liver volume was at least 10% fat at study entry).

That percentage increased to about 90% of people receiving these doses after 48 weeks, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, reported during a separate presentation at the ADA meeting.

“When you add glucagon activity, liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” observed Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The average age of the participants in the new study of the use of retatrutide for those with obesity/overweight but not diabetes was 48 years. By design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Treatment with retatrutide was also significantly associated with improvements in several cardiometabolic measures in exploratory analyses, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure, A1c, fasting glucose, insulin, and some (but not all) lipids, Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors reported in the NEJM article.

The safety profile of retatrutide was consistent with reported phase 1 findings for the agent among people with type 2 diabetes and resembled the safety profiles of other agents based on GLP-1 or GIP–GLP-1 mimicry for the treatment of type 2 diabetes or obesity.

The most frequently reported adverse events from retatrutide were transient, mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events. They occurred primarily during dose escalation. Discontinuation of retatrutide or placebo because of adverse events occurred in 6% to 16% of the participants who received retatrutide and in none of the participants who received placebo.

Lilly, the company developing retatrutide, previously announced the launch of four phase 3 trials to gather further data on retatrutide for use in a marketing-approval application to the Food and Drug Administration.

The four trials – TRIUMPH-1, TRIUMPH-2, TRIUMPH-3, and TRIUMPH-4 – are evaluating the safety and efficacy of retatrutide for chronic weight management for those with obesity or overweight, including those who also have obstructive sleep apnea, knee osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The study was sponsored by Lilly, the company developing retatrutide. Dr. Patti has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Hanmi, and MBX. She has received funding from Dexcom and has been a monitor for a trial funded by Fractyl. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with Lilly as well as other companies.
 

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

A novel triple agonist to receptors for three nutrient-stimulated hormones led to weight loss as high as 24% among people with overweight or obesity but who did not have type 2 diabetes when used at the highest tested dose for 48 weeks. The results are from a phase 2 study of retatrutide that was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2023 Aug 10. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2301972).

This level of weight loss is “unprecedented” for a medication administered for 48 weeks, Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.

The findings “offer further optimism ... that effective pharmacologic management of obesity and related disorders is possible,” wrote Dr. Patti, a principal investigator at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

The study randomly assigned 338 adults with obesity or overweight – a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 27 kg/m² – and at least one weight-related complication to receive either weekly subcutaneous injections of retatrutide in any of six dose regimens or placebo over 48 weeks. The primary outcome was weight change from baseline after 24 weeks.

The highest dose of retatrutide safely produced an average 17.5% drop from baseline weight, compared with an average 1.6% reduction in the placebo group, after 24 weeks, a significant difference.

After 48 weeks, the highest retatrutide dose safely cut baseline weight by an average of 24.2%, compared with an average 2.1% drop among placebo control patients, Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, and her coauthors wrote in their report. Weight loss levels after 24 and 48 weeks of retatrutide treatment followed a clear dose-response pattern.
 

Weight losses never before seen

“I have never seen weight loss at this level” after nearly 1 year of treatment, Dr. Jastreboff said when she discussed these findings in a press conference at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego in late June.

A separate presentation at the ADA meeting documented unprecedented weight loss levels in a study of 281 people with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes.

“No other medication has shown an average 17% reduction from baseline bodyweight after 36 weeks in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center at Medical City, Texas, who formally presented the results from the study of retatrutide in people with type 2 diabetes at the ADA meeting.

The mechanism behind retatrutide’s potent weight-loss effect seems likely tied to its action on three human receptors that naturally respond to three nutrient-stimulated hormones that control appetite, metabolism, fat mobilization, and related functions.

The three hormones that the retatrutide molecule simultaneously mimics are glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), such as agents in the class of GLP-1 agonists that includes liraglutide (Victoza/Saxenda) and semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy); the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), the receptor that is also activated by tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a dual-incretin receptor agonist that mimics both GLP-1 and GIP; and glucagon. Survodutide is a dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist in phase 2 development.

Retatrutide is currently unique among agents with reported clinical results by having agonist effects on the receptors for all three of these hormones, a property that led Dr. Patti to call retatrutide a “triple G” hormone-receptor agonist in her editorial.
 

Triple agonist has added effect on liver fat clearance

The glucagon-receptor agonism appears to give retatrutide added effects beyond those of the GLP-1 agonists or GLP-1/GIP dual agonists that are increasingly used in U.S. practice.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of the no diabetes/Jastreboff study (but that was not included in the NEJM report) showed that at both 8-mg and 12-mg weekly doses, 24 weeks of retatrutide produced complete resolution of excess liver fat (hepatic steatosis) in about 80% of the people eligible for the analysis (those whose liver volume was at least 10% fat at study entry).

That percentage increased to about 90% of people receiving these doses after 48 weeks, Lee M. Kaplan, MD, reported during a separate presentation at the ADA meeting.

“When you add glucagon activity, liver-fat clearance goes up tremendously,” observed Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The average age of the participants in the new study of the use of retatrutide for those with obesity/overweight but not diabetes was 48 years. By design, 52% were men. (The study sought to enroll roughly equal numbers of men and women.) Average BMI at study entry was 37 kg/m².

Treatment with retatrutide was also significantly associated with improvements in several cardiometabolic measures in exploratory analyses, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure, A1c, fasting glucose, insulin, and some (but not all) lipids, Dr. Jastreboff, director of the Yale Obesity Research Center of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and her coauthors reported in the NEJM article.

The safety profile of retatrutide was consistent with reported phase 1 findings for the agent among people with type 2 diabetes and resembled the safety profiles of other agents based on GLP-1 or GIP–GLP-1 mimicry for the treatment of type 2 diabetes or obesity.

The most frequently reported adverse events from retatrutide were transient, mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events. They occurred primarily during dose escalation. Discontinuation of retatrutide or placebo because of adverse events occurred in 6% to 16% of the participants who received retatrutide and in none of the participants who received placebo.

Lilly, the company developing retatrutide, previously announced the launch of four phase 3 trials to gather further data on retatrutide for use in a marketing-approval application to the Food and Drug Administration.

The four trials – TRIUMPH-1, TRIUMPH-2, TRIUMPH-3, and TRIUMPH-4 – are evaluating the safety and efficacy of retatrutide for chronic weight management for those with obesity or overweight, including those who also have obstructive sleep apnea, knee osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

The study was sponsored by Lilly, the company developing retatrutide. Dr. Patti has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Hanmi, and MBX. She has received funding from Dexcom and has been a monitor for a trial funded by Fractyl. Dr. Jastreboff, Dr. Kaplan, and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with Lilly as well as other companies.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Plasma levels of three proteins involved in growth hormone activity showed significant links to the controllability of type 2 diabetes in children, a finding that suggests these proteins may serve as risk markers for incident type 2 diabetes and help identify adolescents who could benefit from aggressive preventive care.

“Plasma growth hormone mediators are associated with glycemic failure in youth with type 2 diabetes,” Chang Lu, MD, said at the at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. “Our hope is that these mediators could be biomarkers for predicting type 2 diabetes onset,” she added in an interview.

Another potential application is to “leverage these data to find predictive markers” that could identify adolescents with type 2 diabetes “at risk for particularly aggressive disease and target them for more intervention,” added Elvira M. Isganaitis, MD, senior author of the report and a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
 

Does growth hormone cause incident T2D at puberty?

Changes in levels of growth hormone–associated peptides during puberty “could potentially explain why children with type 2 diabetes have a more aggressive course” of the disorder, added Dr. Lu, a pediatric endocrinologist at Joslin and at Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

Puberty-associated changes in growth hormone and related peptides “could be why type 2 diabetes starts during puberty. Type 2 diabetes is almost unheard of before children reach about age 10,” Dr. Isganaitis said in an interview.

A current hypothesis is that “high levels of growth hormone is a cause of insulin resistance during puberty, but in healthy children their beta cells overcome this by making more insulin and so they do not develop diabetes,” said Kristen J. Nadeau, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver. 

“But this is a stress situation, and if someone has poor beta-cell function they may develop diabetes. The increase in growth hormone [during puberty] can unmask a physiologic and genetic predisposition” to developing type 2 diabetes, Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

The analyses run by Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and their coauthors used data collected in the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study, which randomized 699 children aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes to one of three antidiabetes treatment regimens and tallied the subsequent incidence of glycemic failure. The study defined the latter as either 6 months with a hemoglobin A1c level of at least 8% or need for insulin treatment.

The primary outcome showed a 39%-52% incidence of failure during 5 years of follow-up depending on the specific treatments the study participants received.
 

Growth hormone correlates of glycemic failure

The new analyses focused on 310 study participants from TODAY who had plasma specimens available from baseline and a second specimen obtained after 3 years of follow-up. The researchers compared the levels of three peptides that mediate growth hormone signaling at baseline and after 3 years, and assessed these changes relative to the endpoint of glycemic failure.

The results showed that an increase in insulin-like growth factor-1 significantly linked with a reduced incidence of glycemic failure and improved glycemia and beta-cell function.

In contrast, increasing plasma levels of growth hormone receptor significantly linked with an increased rate of glycemic failure, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and diminished beta-cell function. Also, an increase in insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 significantly linked with glycemic failure and hyperglycemia at 36 months, and with higher insulin sensitivity at baseline. All these analyses adjusted for baseline differences in several demographic and clinical variables.

But these post hoc analyses could not determine whether these associations resulted from, or had a causal role in, treatment failure, cautioned Dr. Lu.

Future studies should examine the relationship of growth hormone signaling and the course of glycemic control in children and adolescents with prediabetes and obesity, Dr. Lu said.

Confirming that these growth hormone-related proteins are reliable predictors of future glycemic dysfunction would open the door to studies of interventions to slow or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes in children identified as high risk.

Potential interventions include early initiation of insulin treatment, which could help preserve beta-cell function, or treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a class of agents that may interact with the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptors on beta cells, Dr. Lu said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Lu, Dr. Isganaitis, and Dr. Nadeau reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a large cohort of older adults with type 2 diabetes in Italy, those with the highest intake of ultraprocessed food and beverages (UPF) were more likely to die of all causes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) within a decade than those with the lowest intake – independent of adherence to a healthy Mediterranean diet.

Adults in the top quartile of UPF intake had a 64% increased risk of all-cause death and a 2.5-fold increased risk of CVD death during follow-up, compared with those in the lowest quartile, after adjusting for variables including Mediterranean diet score.

These findings from the Moli-sani study by Marialaura Bonaccio, PhD, from the Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare (IRCCS) Neuromed, in Pozzilli, Italy, and colleagues, were published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Dietary recommendations for prevention and management of type 2 diabetes almost exclusively prioritize consumption of nutritionally balanced foods that are the source of fiber [and] healthy fats and [are] poor in free sugars, and promote dietary patterns – such as the Mediterranean diet and the DASH diet – that place a large emphasis on food groups (for example, whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables) regardless of food processing,” the researchers note.

The research suggests that “besides prioritizing the adoption of a diet based on nutritional requirements, dietary guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes should also recommend limiting UPF,” they conclude.

“In addition to the adoption of a diet based on well-known nutritional requirements, dietary recommendations should also suggest limiting the consumption of ultraprocessed foods as much as possible,” Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, president, IRCCS Neuromed, echoed, in a press release from the institute.

“In this context, and not only for people with diabetes, the front-of-pack nutrition labels should also include information on the degree of food processing,” he observed.

Caroline M. Apovian, MD, who was not involved with the study, agrees that it is wise to limit consumption of UPF.

However, we need more research to better understand which components of UPF are harmful and the biologic mechanisms, Dr. Apovian, who is codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization in an interview.

She noted that in a randomized crossover trial in 20 patients who were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted, people ate more and gained weight during 2 weeks of a diet high in UPF, compared with 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, carbohydrate, sugar, fat, sodium, and fiber.
 

Ultraprocessed foods classed according to Nova system

UPF is “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, using a series of processes and containing minimal whole foods,” and they “are usually nutrient-poor, high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats,” the Italian researchers write.

High intake of UPF, they add, may exacerbate health risks in people with type 2 diabetes, who are already at higher risk of premature mortality, mainly due to diabetes-related complications.

The researchers analyzed data from a subset of patients in the Moli-sani study of environmental and genetic factors underlying disease, which enrolled 24,325 individuals aged 35 and older who lived in Molise, in central-southern Italy, in 2005-2010.

The current analysis included 1,065 participants in Moli-sani who had type 2 diabetes at baseline and completed a food frequency questionnaire by which participants reported their consumption of 188 foods and beverages in the previous 12 months.

Participants were a mean age of 65 years, and 60% were men.

Most UPF intake was from processed meat (22.4%), crispbread/rusks (16.6%), nonhomemade pizza (11.2%), and cakes, pies, pastries, and puddings (8.8%).

Researchers categorized foods and beverages into four groups with increasing degrees of processing, based on the Nova Food Classification System:

• Group 1: Fresh or minimally processed foods and beverages (for example, fruit, meat, milk).
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (for example, oils, butter).
• Group 3: Processed foods and beverages (for example, canned fish, bread).
• Group 4: UPF (22 foods and beverages including carbonated drinks, processed meats, sweet or savory packaged snacks, margarine, and foods and beverages with artificial sweeteners).

Participants were divided into four quartiles based on UPF consumption.

The mean percentage of UPF consumption out of total food and beverage intake was 2.8%, 5.2%, 7.7%, and 14.4% for quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. By sex, these rates for quartile 1 were < 4.7% for women and < 3.7% for men, and for quartile 4 were ≥ 10.5% for women and ≥ 9% for men.

Participants with the highest UPF intake were younger (mean age, 63 vs. 67 years) but otherwise had similar characteristics as other participants.

During a median follow-up of 11.6 years, 308 participants died from all causes, including 129 who died from CVD.

Compared with participants with the lowest intake of UPF (quartile 1), those with the highest intake (quartile 4) had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.70) and CVD mortality (HR, 2.64) during follow-up, after multivariable adjustment. The analysis adjusted for sex, age, energy intake, residence, education, housing, smoking, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity, history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, aspirin use, years since type 2 diabetes diagnosis, and special diet for blood glucose control.

After further adjusting for Mediterranean diet score, the risk of all-cause and CVD mortality during follow-up for patients with the highest versus lowest intake of UPF remained similar (HR, 1.64 and 2.55, respectively).

There was a linear dose–response relationship between UPF and all-cause and CVD mortality.

Increasing intake of fruit drinks, carbonated drinks, and salty biscuits was associated with higher all-cause and CVD mortality rates, and consumption of stock cubes and margarine was further related to higher CVD death.

The researchers acknowledge that the study was observational, and therefore cannot determine cause and effect, and was not designed to specifically collect dietary data according to the Nova classification. The findings may not be generalizable to other populations.

The analysis was partly funded by grants from the AIRC and Italian Ministry of Health. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Newly discovered genes could explain body fat differences between men and women with obesity, as well as why some people gain excess weight in childhood.

Identifying specific genes adds to growing evidence that biology, in part, drives obesity. Researchers hope the findings will lead to effective treatments, and in the meantime add to the understanding that there are many types of obesity that come from a mix of genes and environmental factors.

Although the study is not the first to point to specific genes, “we were quite surprised by the proposed function of some of the genes we identified,” Lena R. Kaisinger, lead study investigator and a PhD student in the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge (England), wrote in an email. For example, the genes also manage cell death and influence how cells respond to DNA damage. 

The investigators are not sure why genes involved in body size perform this kind of double duty, which opens avenues for future research.

The gene sequencing study was published online in the journal Cell Genomics.
 

Differences between women and men

The researchers found five new genes in females and two new genes in males linked to greater body mass index (BMI): DIDO1, KIAA1109, MC4R, PTPRG and SLC12A5 in women and MC4R and SLTM in men. People who recall having obesity as a child were more likely to have rare genetic changes in two other genes, OBSCN and MADD.

“The key thing is that when you see real genes with real gene names, it really makes real the notion that genetics underlie obesity,” said Lee Kaplan, MD, PhD, director of the Obesity and Metabolism Institute in Boston, who was not affiliated with the research.

Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues found these significant genetic differences by studying genomes of about 420,000 people stored in the UK Biobank, a huge biomedical database. The researchers decided to look at genes by sex and age because these are “two areas that we still know very little about,” Ms. Kaisinger said.

“We know that different types of obesity connect to different ages,” said Dr. Kaplan, who is also past president of the Obesity Society. “But what they’ve done now is find genes that are associated with particular subtypes of obesity ... some more common in one sex and some more common in different phases of life, including early onset obesity.”
 

The future is already here

Treatment for obesity based on a person’s genes already exists. For example, in June 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved setmelanotide (Imcivree) for weight management in adults and children aged over 6 years with specific genetic markers. 

Even as encouraging as setmelanotide is to Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues, these are still early days for translating the current research findings into clinical obesity tests and potential treatment, she said.

The “holy grail,” Dr. Kaplan said, is a future where people get screened for a particular genetic profile and their provider can say something like, “You’re probably most susceptible to this type, so we’ll treat you with this particular drug that’s been developed for people with this phenotype.”

Dr. Kaplan added: “That’s exactly what we are trying to do.”

Moving forward, Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues plan to repeat the study in larger and more diverse populations. They also plan to reverse the usual road map for studies, which typically start in animals and then progress to humans.

“We plan to take the most promising gene candidates forward into mouse models to learn more about their function and how exactly their dysfunction results in obesity,” Ms. Kaisinger said. 

Three study coauthors are employees and shareholders of Adrestia Therapeutics. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Newly discovered genes could explain body fat differences between men and women with obesity, as well as why some people gain excess weight in childhood.

Identifying specific genes adds to growing evidence that biology, in part, drives obesity. Researchers hope the findings will lead to effective treatments, and in the meantime add to the understanding that there are many types of obesity that come from a mix of genes and environmental factors.

Although the study is not the first to point to specific genes, “we were quite surprised by the proposed function of some of the genes we identified,” Lena R. Kaisinger, lead study investigator and a PhD student in the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge (England), wrote in an email. For example, the genes also manage cell death and influence how cells respond to DNA damage. 

The investigators are not sure why genes involved in body size perform this kind of double duty, which opens avenues for future research.

The gene sequencing study was published online in the journal Cell Genomics.
 

Differences between women and men

The researchers found five new genes in females and two new genes in males linked to greater body mass index (BMI): DIDO1, KIAA1109, MC4R, PTPRG and SLC12A5 in women and MC4R and SLTM in men. People who recall having obesity as a child were more likely to have rare genetic changes in two other genes, OBSCN and MADD.

“The key thing is that when you see real genes with real gene names, it really makes real the notion that genetics underlie obesity,” said Lee Kaplan, MD, PhD, director of the Obesity and Metabolism Institute in Boston, who was not affiliated with the research.

Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues found these significant genetic differences by studying genomes of about 420,000 people stored in the UK Biobank, a huge biomedical database. The researchers decided to look at genes by sex and age because these are “two areas that we still know very little about,” Ms. Kaisinger said.

“We know that different types of obesity connect to different ages,” said Dr. Kaplan, who is also past president of the Obesity Society. “But what they’ve done now is find genes that are associated with particular subtypes of obesity ... some more common in one sex and some more common in different phases of life, including early onset obesity.”
 

The future is already here

Treatment for obesity based on a person’s genes already exists. For example, in June 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved setmelanotide (Imcivree) for weight management in adults and children aged over 6 years with specific genetic markers. 

Even as encouraging as setmelanotide is to Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues, these are still early days for translating the current research findings into clinical obesity tests and potential treatment, she said.

The “holy grail,” Dr. Kaplan said, is a future where people get screened for a particular genetic profile and their provider can say something like, “You’re probably most susceptible to this type, so we’ll treat you with this particular drug that’s been developed for people with this phenotype.”

Dr. Kaplan added: “That’s exactly what we are trying to do.”

Moving forward, Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues plan to repeat the study in larger and more diverse populations. They also plan to reverse the usual road map for studies, which typically start in animals and then progress to humans.

“We plan to take the most promising gene candidates forward into mouse models to learn more about their function and how exactly their dysfunction results in obesity,” Ms. Kaisinger said. 

Three study coauthors are employees and shareholders of Adrestia Therapeutics. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Newly discovered genes could explain body fat differences between men and women with obesity, as well as why some people gain excess weight in childhood.

Identifying specific genes adds to growing evidence that biology, in part, drives obesity. Researchers hope the findings will lead to effective treatments, and in the meantime add to the understanding that there are many types of obesity that come from a mix of genes and environmental factors.

Although the study is not the first to point to specific genes, “we were quite surprised by the proposed function of some of the genes we identified,” Lena R. Kaisinger, lead study investigator and a PhD student in the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge (England), wrote in an email. For example, the genes also manage cell death and influence how cells respond to DNA damage. 

The investigators are not sure why genes involved in body size perform this kind of double duty, which opens avenues for future research.

The gene sequencing study was published online in the journal Cell Genomics.
 

Differences between women and men

The researchers found five new genes in females and two new genes in males linked to greater body mass index (BMI): DIDO1, KIAA1109, MC4R, PTPRG and SLC12A5 in women and MC4R and SLTM in men. People who recall having obesity as a child were more likely to have rare genetic changes in two other genes, OBSCN and MADD.

“The key thing is that when you see real genes with real gene names, it really makes real the notion that genetics underlie obesity,” said Lee Kaplan, MD, PhD, director of the Obesity and Metabolism Institute in Boston, who was not affiliated with the research.

Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues found these significant genetic differences by studying genomes of about 420,000 people stored in the UK Biobank, a huge biomedical database. The researchers decided to look at genes by sex and age because these are “two areas that we still know very little about,” Ms. Kaisinger said.

“We know that different types of obesity connect to different ages,” said Dr. Kaplan, who is also past president of the Obesity Society. “But what they’ve done now is find genes that are associated with particular subtypes of obesity ... some more common in one sex and some more common in different phases of life, including early onset obesity.”
 

The future is already here

Treatment for obesity based on a person’s genes already exists. For example, in June 2022, the Food and Drug Administration approved setmelanotide (Imcivree) for weight management in adults and children aged over 6 years with specific genetic markers. 

Even as encouraging as setmelanotide is to Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues, these are still early days for translating the current research findings into clinical obesity tests and potential treatment, she said.

The “holy grail,” Dr. Kaplan said, is a future where people get screened for a particular genetic profile and their provider can say something like, “You’re probably most susceptible to this type, so we’ll treat you with this particular drug that’s been developed for people with this phenotype.”

Dr. Kaplan added: “That’s exactly what we are trying to do.”

Moving forward, Ms. Kaisinger and colleagues plan to repeat the study in larger and more diverse populations. They also plan to reverse the usual road map for studies, which typically start in animals and then progress to humans.

“We plan to take the most promising gene candidates forward into mouse models to learn more about their function and how exactly their dysfunction results in obesity,” Ms. Kaisinger said. 

Three study coauthors are employees and shareholders of Adrestia Therapeutics. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of diabetic foot disease management, I’d like to discuss the updated 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines and their implications for our practice. The goal is to create a common language of risk that is easily related from clinician to clinician to patient.

Whatever language we use, though, the problem we face is vast:

• Diabetic foot ulcers affect approximately 18.6 million people worldwide and 1.6 million in the United States each year.
• They are associated with high rates of premature death, with a 5-year mortality rate of 30%. This rate is greater than 70% for those with above-foot amputations, worse than all but the most aggressive cancers.
• The direct costs of treating diabetic foot ulcers in the United States is estimated at $9 billion-$13 billion annually.
• Over 550 million people worldwide have diabetes, with 18.6 million developing foot ulcers annually. Up to 34% of those with diabetes will develop a foot ulcer.
• About 20% of those with a diabetic foot ulcer will undergo amputation, a major cause of which is infection, which affects 50% of foot ulcers.
• Up to 20% of those with a foot ulcer require hospitalization, with 15%-20% undergoing amputation. Inequities exist in diabetes-related foot complications:
• –Rates of major amputation are higher in non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, compared with non-Hispanic White populations.
• –Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations present with more advanced ulcers and peripheral artery disease, and are more likely to undergo amputation without revascularization attempt.

The IWGDF, a multidisciplinary team of international experts, has recently updated its guidelines. This team, comprising endocrinologists, internal medicine physicians, physiatrists, podiatrists, and vascular surgeons from across the globe, has worked tirelessly to provide us with a comprehensive guide to managing diabetes-related foot ulcers.

The updated guidelines address five critical clinical questions, each with up to 13 important outcomes. The systematic review that underpins these guidelines identified 149 eligible studies, assessing 28 different systems. This exhaustive research has led to the development of seven key recommendations that address the clinical questions and consider the existence of different clinical settings.

One of the significant updates in the 2023 guidelines is the recommendation of SINBAD – site, ischemia, neuropathy, bacterial infection, area, and depth – as the priority wound classification system for people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This system is particularly useful for interprofessional communication, describing each composite variable, and conducting clinical audits using the full score. However, the guidelines also recommend the use of other, more specific assessment systems for infection and peripheral artery disease from the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF when resources and an appropriate level of expertise exist.

The introduction of the Wound, Ischemia and Foot Infection (WIfI) classification system in the guidelines is also a noteworthy development. This system is crucial in assessing perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularization in a person with diabetes and a foot ulcer. By assessing the level of wound ischemia and infection, we can make informed decisions about the need for vascular intervention, which can significantly affect the patient’s outcome. This can be done simply by classifying each of the three categories of wound, ischemia, or foot infection as none, mild, moderate, or severe. By simplifying the very dynamic comorbidities of tissue loss, ischemia, and infection into a usable and predictive scale, it helps us to communicate risk across disciplines. This has been found to be highly predictive of healing, amputation, and mortality.

We use WIfI every day across our system. An example might include a patient we recently treated:

A 76-year-old woman presented with a wound to her left foot. Her past medical history revealed type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and documented peripheral artery disease with prior bilateral femoral-popliteal bypass conducted at an external facility. In addition to gangrenous changes to her fourth toe, she displayed erythema and lymphangitic streaking up her dorsal foot. While she was afebrile, her white cell count was 13,000/mcL. Radiographic examinations did not show signs of osteomyelitis. Noninvasive vascular evaluations revealed an ankle brachial index of 0.4 and a toe pressure of 10 mm Hg. An aortogram with a lower-extremity runoff arteriogram confirmed the obstruction of her left femoral-popliteal bypass.

Taking these results into account, her WIfI score was determined as: wound 2 (moderate), ischemia 3 (severe), foot infection 2 (moderate, no sepsis), translating to a clinical stage 4. This denotes a high risk for major amputation.

Following a team discussion, she was taken to the operating room for an initial debridement of her infection which consisted of a partial fourth ray resection to the level of the mid-metatarsal. Following control of the infection, she received a vascular assessment which ultimately constituted a femoral to distal anterior tibial bypass. Following both of these, she was discharged on a negative-pressure wound therapy device, receiving a split-thickness skin graft 4 weeks later.

The guidelines also emphasize the need for specific training, skills, and experience to ensure the accuracy of the recommended systems for characterizing foot ulcers. The person applying these systems should be appropriately trained and, according to their national or regional standards, should have the knowledge, expertise, and skills necessary to manage people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of diabetes-related foot disease, these guidelines serve as a valuable compass, guiding our decisions and actions. They remind us of the importance of continuous learning, collaboration, and the application of evidence-based practice in our work.

I encourage you to delve into these guidelines. Let’s use them to improve our practice, enhance our communication, and, ultimately, provide better care for our patients.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As with porridge, so with blood pressure: Just right makes all the difference.

Ill-fitting blood pressure measurement cuffs produce erroneous readings that impair hypertension treatment, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

People whose mid-upper arm circumference exceeds 32 cm require larger cuffs than the standard size, but in many cases the regular-sized cuff is used on everyone. As a result, patients with larger arms may be falsely diagnosed with high blood pressure because of a too-small cuff, leading to overprescribing of medications that could make their health worse, according to the researchers.  

“A person whose blood pressure is 120/80, which is normal – if they’re using the wrong cuff, they could get a measurement that says 140/90, let’s say,” said study author Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, vice chair for clinical research in the department of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “They might think they not only have hypertension, but stage 2 hypertension. Providers might give one or even two medicines to lower this, which could lead to hypotension,” Dr. Brady said.

Conversely, someone with smaller arms whose cuff is too big may present with an artificially low blood pressure. The implications of using ill-fitting cuffs are well known. Dr. Brady, among others, has studied the topic extensively. Even so, she said the measurement errors in the latest study were larger than expected.
 

The Goldilocks test

People with an arm circumference of 20-25 cm should use a smaller cuff than the regular size, Dr. Brady and colleagues reported. Circumferences of 25.1-32 cm require a regular-sized cuff; large cuffs are for circumferences of 32.1-40 cm; and extra-large cuffs should be used at 40.1-55 cm.

The study included 195 residents of Baltimore (128 women, 67 men; 132 Black, 58 White, 5 Hispanic) with an average age of 54 years. The researchers measured every participant’s blood pressure using an automated device on four occasions, taking three measurements each time.

The first three sets of measurements used, respectively, an appropriate cuff size for each person’s arm circumference; a cuff that was too big; and a cuff that was too small. This study design ensured that a regular-sized cuff would be used during one of the three measurements – sometimes that cuff was too small, sometimes it was appropriate, and other times it was too big.

The final set of three measurements used the appropriate cuff size for a person’s arm every time. Dr. Brady and colleagues then compared people’s blood pressure measurements when using the right-sized cuff to measurements with a regular-sized cuff that was not suited for them.

They found that using a cuff that was too large for the patient’s arm (i.e., using a regular cuff when a small cuff was the right choice) led to understating systolic blood pressure by –3.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], –5.6 to –1.7). A cuff that was one size too small – using regular instead of a large – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 4.8 (3.0-6.6) mm Hg. And a cuff that was two sizes too small – someone who should have received an extra-large cuff but received the regular size – overestimated systolic blood pressure by 19.5 (16.1-22.9) mm Hg. All differences were statistically significant, the researchers reported.

“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized cross-over trial to examine the effect of miscuffing on automated blood pressure readings,” Mathias Lalika, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.; Stephen P. Juraschek, MD, PhD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston; and LaPrincess C. Brewer, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“Interestingly, the degree of underestimation or overestimation increased as the appropriate cuff size progressed from the regular to extra-large BP cuff. More importantly, the effect of miscuffing did not vary with BP or obesity status,” they wrote.

“This was more of a pragmatic trial to see real world, all comers,” Dr. Brady said, when regular-sized cuffs are used whether or not that made sense.

“This study reaffirms findings of previous studies and highlights a major source of error in blood pressure measurement,” Raj Padwal, MD, director of the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic, Edmonton, Alta., said in an interview. Dr. Padwal, who was not involved in the study, said the findings highlight the importance of ensuring that technicians who typically measure blood pressure understand the value of using the right-sized cuff.

Dr. Brady noted that measuring arm circumference takes about 15 seconds. He advised health organizations and clinics to carry multiple cuffs sizes to avoid a scramble to find a right-sized cuff. In the editorial, Dr. Lalika, Dr. Juraschek, and Dr. Brewer call for particular attention to providing the right-sized cuffs to facilities that work with underserved populations, such as federally qualified health centers.

Dr. Padwal added that even a perfectly measured blood pressure test at a clinic indicates pressure at a moment in time. Ten minutes later the story could be different. For this reason, he and other clinicians recommend frequent home blood pressure measurements rather than relying solely on the sparse number of readings collected in the clinic setting.

“A properly educated patient can give many readings that are separated in space and time and, when averaged, can give a much better picture of overall blood pressure and future risk,” Dr. Padwal said. 

Dr. Brady agreed with the value of home readings but said home-based readings also can be erroneous if the patient uses a cuff that is the wrong size. She cochairs a committee for the American Medical Association that recommends validated home blood pressure measurement devices on a periodically updated website called Validate BP. The details for each device listing show the cuff sizes available per device. Many devices provide only the standard cuff, Dr. Brady noted, but some offer multiple cuff sizes.

“One of the things that would be great if it came out of this paper is if patients were empowered to ask physicians to measure their arm” and then use that information to select the appropriate cuff for their home device, she said.

Dr. Brady and Dr. Padwal reported no relevant financial relationships. This study was supported by Resolve to Save Lives, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Gates Philanthropy Partners, which is funded with support from the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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

Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”

But what is the definition of obesity? Does it refer to a disease or a risk factor? And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.

Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?

This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.

“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”

One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.

Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”

He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”

But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”

Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”

Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.

“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
 

Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this

Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”

She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.

Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.

Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”

By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”

The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.

Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”

Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.

“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
 

Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?

Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.

Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.

He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”

“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”

He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”

He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”

Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”

Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.

Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.

He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”

However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.

But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.

“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
 

The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations

Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.

“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”

Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”

Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”

Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.

“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.

“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”

Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.

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