Clinical Endocrinology News

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO – Bariatric surgery produced sustained, long-term glucose control and weight loss for at least 7 years, and for up to 12 years, in some U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline body mass index (BMI) of at least 27 kg/m², according to new study results.

The findings are from ARMMS-T2D, a prospective, controlled trial with the largest cohort and longest follow-up of bariatric surgery reported to date. The results reinforce the potential role of surgery “as an option to improve diabetes-related outcomes, including people with a BMI of less than 35 kg/m²,” said Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

People who underwent bariatric surgery (gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass) had an average 1.6–percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c from baseline 7 years after surgery and an average 1.4–percentage point reduction from baseline after 12 years. Average decreases from baseline were 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points at these time points, respectively, among controls who underwent lifestyle and medical interventions only. Between-group differences were significant at both the 7-year (primary endpoint) and 12-year time points in the intention-to-treat analysis, reported Dr. Courcoulas, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

Average weight loss from baseline to 7 and 12 years was 19.9% and 19.3%, respectively, in the surgery group and 8.3% and 10.8%, respectively, among controls, which was significantly different between groups at both time points (a secondary endpoint).

Dr. Courcoulas highlighted that the 10.8% average weight loss after 12 years among controls included crossovers, with 25% of patients progressing from their initial intervention of lifestyle and medical management to undergoing bariatric surgery during follow-up. Among the controls who never underwent surgery (per-protocol analysis), the 12-year average weight loss from baseline was 7.3%.
 

High-dose incretin-hormone therapy missing

A major limitation of ARMMS-T2D (Alliance of Randomized Trials of Medicine vs. Metabolic Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes) is that it prospectively followed a combined cohort from four independently run controlled U.S. trials that all began more than a decade ago, before the contemporary era of medical weight loss management that’s been revolutionized by incretin-hormone receptor agonists such as semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly).

New randomized, controlled trials “are needed” that compare metabolic bariatric surgery with medical and lifestyle management that includes “high-dose incretin-hormone therapy,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, designated discussant for ARMMS-T2D at the session.

The results also showed notable rates of two adverse events associated with bariatric surgery: a 14% incidence of bone fractures, compared with a rate of 5% among controls, and a 12% incidence of anemia after surgery, compared with a rate of 3% among controls.

The control group also had a significantly higher 3% incidence of new need for hemodialysis, compared with no incident dialysis cases among the surgery patients.

“The fracture difference [after bariatric surgery] needs more careful follow-up,” commented Dr. Eckel, an endocrinologist and emeritus professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

ARMMS-T2D included data from 262 people with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes randomized in any of four U.S. studies that compared the outcomes of 166 patients who underwent bariatric surgery with 96 patients who served as controls and had lifestyle and medical interventions for weight loss and glycemic control. Seven-year follow-up included 82 (85%) of the initial 96 control patients and 136 (82%) of the initial 166 surgery patients. After 12 years, 31 of the controls (32%) and 83 surgery patients (50%) remained for the A1c analysis.
 

A quartet of studies joined together

The ARMMS-T2D prospective analysis resulted from an early partnership by the organizers of the four independent randomized studies that compared bariatric surgery with lifestyle and medical intervention in people with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity: STAMPEDE, which included 150 people at the Cleveland Clinic starting in 2007; SLIMM-T2D, which included 88 people at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston starting in 2010; TRIABETES, which included 69 people at the University of Pittsburgh starting in 2009; and CROSSROADS, which included 43 people at the University of Washington, Seattle, starting in 2011.

Further secondary findings from the ARMMS-T2D analyses showed that 38% of the surgery patients and 17% of controls had an A1c < 6.5% after 7 years.

At 7 years, type 2 diabetes remission, defined as those with an A1c < 6.5% who were not taking any antidiabetes medications, was reached in 18% of surgery patients and 6% of controls. At 12 years, 13% of the surgery patients and none of the controls met this metric, Dr. Courcoulas said.

The duration of diabetes a person had before undergoing bariatric surgery “may be an important factor” as to whether patients undergo remission, suggested Dr. Eckel. He noted that longer duration type 2 diabetes usually results in increased glucose intolerance and makes remission less likely

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appeared to have the best rates of patients achieving both lower A1c levels and more weight loss, followed by sleeve gastrectomy and gastric banding, which had the worst performance. But Dr. Courcoulas cautioned that the study was underpowered to reliably compare individual surgical procedures.

In terms of those with an A1c < 7.0%, surgery patients maintained a steady prevalence rate of about 55% during the first 5 years of follow-up, roughly twice the rate of controls, at 28% during all years of follow-up starting at year 5.

About 37% of enrolled patients had a BMI < 35 kg/m², and the A1c-lowering benefit and weight loss in this subgroup were consistent with the overall findings, which supports consideration of bariatric surgery for people with type 2 diabetes and a BMI < 35 kg/m², Dr. Courcoulas said.

She also highlighted that bariatric surgery was linked with significant reductions in triglyceride levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, compared with controls. However, 22% of surgery patients experienced abdominal pain, compared with 10% of controls, and 7% experienced dysphagia, compared with no cases among the controls.

ARMMS-T2D received no commercial funding. Dr. Courcoulas had no disclosures. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to numerous companies but said he had no relevant disclosures.

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

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may help curb the severity of hypoglycemia after weight loss operations and even other gastrointestinal procedures, according to recent findings from a small study published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

Hypoglycemia is a chronic and persistent complication common in patients following bariatric surgery, affecting as many as 30% of people who undergo a sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

The symptoms of hypoglycemia, including lightheadedness, heart palpitations, difficulty concentrating, and confusion, can mimic anxiety disorders, arrhythmia, and dumping syndrome.

If a postoperative patient experiences these symptoms within a few hours following a meal or exercising, “primary care doctors should consider the possibility that hypoglycemia may be a contributor,” said Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, director of the Hypoglycemia Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and senior author of the new study. 

“In fact, hypoglycemia is a possible diagnosis even among those who underwent [operations other than bariatric, including] fundoplication or other upper gastrointestinal or esophageal surgeries,” she said. 

To understand how CGM could benefit patients, Dr. Patti and colleagues recruited 22 participants who had undergone bariatric surgery more than 8 years prior and had postbariatric hypoglycemia. Their mean age was 51 years, 90% were women, 82% were diagnosed with level 3 hypoglycemia, and none had type 1 or 2 diabetes. 

All participants experienced neuronal dysfunction with symptoms like fatigue, concentration difficulties, and confusion. More than 90% had received medical nutrition therapy for postbariatric hypoglycemia in the past.

CGM data were collected in the 22 individuals in two sequential phases: masked (no access to sensor glucose or alarms) and unmasked (access to sensor glucose and alarms for low or rapidly declining sensor glucose). Twelve participants wore a CGM (Dexcom G4 device) for a total of 28 days, whereas 10 wore a CGM (the Dexcom G6 device) for a total of 20 days.

The team observed that the percentage of time when the participants’ blood glucose was below 70 mg/dL – the definition of hypoglycemia – was significantly lower during the unmasked phase. 

Though CGM devices are not sensitive enough to serve as a diagnostic tool for hypoglycemia, “the alarms on CGM devices can provide some much-needed awareness,” Dr. Patti said. “After a detailed diagnosis, CGM devices can be a helpful tool to assess dietary patterns and make modifications that could reduce the severity of postbariatric hypoglycemia.”

If a patient frequently experiences hypoglycemia, they may not sense when their glucose levels drop, also known as hypoglycemia unawareness, according to Dr. Patti. Studies have found that postbariatric hypoglycemia remains underdiagnosed because most patients are asymptomatic. 

“The use of CGM devices may improve safety in postbariatric hypoglycemia, particularly for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness,” the researchers conclude.
 

Next steps 

Patients are more vulnerable to hypoglycemia after a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery because these procedures involve removing the pylorus. This valve plays a crucial role in only allowing small portions of food to enter the intestine and prevents sudden spikes in blood glucose.

Without the pylorus, large amounts of food directly enter the intestine and soon result in large amounts of glucose getting absorbed, according to Sriram Machineni, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The pancreas then goes into overdrive and produces a lot of insulin, which continues reducing sugar levels,” Dr. Machineni said. “That is what causes hypoglycemia.”

Dr. Patti and associates are next working on research using CGM-derived data to investigate how different types of meals, physical activities, and other factors could influence glucose metabolism patterns in patients with hypoglycemia.

The study was funded by Dexcom, a manufacturer of continuous glucose monitoring systems. Dr. Patti reported receiving grant funding from the Diabetes Research Center.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may help curb the severity of hypoglycemia after weight loss operations and even other gastrointestinal procedures, according to recent findings from a small study published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

Hypoglycemia is a chronic and persistent complication common in patients following bariatric surgery, affecting as many as 30% of people who undergo a sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

The symptoms of hypoglycemia, including lightheadedness, heart palpitations, difficulty concentrating, and confusion, can mimic anxiety disorders, arrhythmia, and dumping syndrome.

If a postoperative patient experiences these symptoms within a few hours following a meal or exercising, “primary care doctors should consider the possibility that hypoglycemia may be a contributor,” said Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, director of the Hypoglycemia Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and senior author of the new study. 

“In fact, hypoglycemia is a possible diagnosis even among those who underwent [operations other than bariatric, including] fundoplication or other upper gastrointestinal or esophageal surgeries,” she said. 

To understand how CGM could benefit patients, Dr. Patti and colleagues recruited 22 participants who had undergone bariatric surgery more than 8 years prior and had postbariatric hypoglycemia. Their mean age was 51 years, 90% were women, 82% were diagnosed with level 3 hypoglycemia, and none had type 1 or 2 diabetes. 

All participants experienced neuronal dysfunction with symptoms like fatigue, concentration difficulties, and confusion. More than 90% had received medical nutrition therapy for postbariatric hypoglycemia in the past.

CGM data were collected in the 22 individuals in two sequential phases: masked (no access to sensor glucose or alarms) and unmasked (access to sensor glucose and alarms for low or rapidly declining sensor glucose). Twelve participants wore a CGM (Dexcom G4 device) for a total of 28 days, whereas 10 wore a CGM (the Dexcom G6 device) for a total of 20 days.

The team observed that the percentage of time when the participants’ blood glucose was below 70 mg/dL – the definition of hypoglycemia – was significantly lower during the unmasked phase. 

Though CGM devices are not sensitive enough to serve as a diagnostic tool for hypoglycemia, “the alarms on CGM devices can provide some much-needed awareness,” Dr. Patti said. “After a detailed diagnosis, CGM devices can be a helpful tool to assess dietary patterns and make modifications that could reduce the severity of postbariatric hypoglycemia.”

If a patient frequently experiences hypoglycemia, they may not sense when their glucose levels drop, also known as hypoglycemia unawareness, according to Dr. Patti. Studies have found that postbariatric hypoglycemia remains underdiagnosed because most patients are asymptomatic. 

“The use of CGM devices may improve safety in postbariatric hypoglycemia, particularly for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness,” the researchers conclude.
 

Next steps 

Patients are more vulnerable to hypoglycemia after a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery because these procedures involve removing the pylorus. This valve plays a crucial role in only allowing small portions of food to enter the intestine and prevents sudden spikes in blood glucose.

Without the pylorus, large amounts of food directly enter the intestine and soon result in large amounts of glucose getting absorbed, according to Sriram Machineni, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The pancreas then goes into overdrive and produces a lot of insulin, which continues reducing sugar levels,” Dr. Machineni said. “That is what causes hypoglycemia.”

Dr. Patti and associates are next working on research using CGM-derived data to investigate how different types of meals, physical activities, and other factors could influence glucose metabolism patterns in patients with hypoglycemia.

The study was funded by Dexcom, a manufacturer of continuous glucose monitoring systems. Dr. Patti reported receiving grant funding from the Diabetes Research Center.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) may help curb the severity of hypoglycemia after weight loss operations and even other gastrointestinal procedures, according to recent findings from a small study published in Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism.

Hypoglycemia is a chronic and persistent complication common in patients following bariatric surgery, affecting as many as 30% of people who undergo a sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

The symptoms of hypoglycemia, including lightheadedness, heart palpitations, difficulty concentrating, and confusion, can mimic anxiety disorders, arrhythmia, and dumping syndrome.

If a postoperative patient experiences these symptoms within a few hours following a meal or exercising, “primary care doctors should consider the possibility that hypoglycemia may be a contributor,” said Mary-Elizabeth Patti, MD, director of the Hypoglycemia Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and senior author of the new study. 

“In fact, hypoglycemia is a possible diagnosis even among those who underwent [operations other than bariatric, including] fundoplication or other upper gastrointestinal or esophageal surgeries,” she said. 

To understand how CGM could benefit patients, Dr. Patti and colleagues recruited 22 participants who had undergone bariatric surgery more than 8 years prior and had postbariatric hypoglycemia. Their mean age was 51 years, 90% were women, 82% were diagnosed with level 3 hypoglycemia, and none had type 1 or 2 diabetes. 

All participants experienced neuronal dysfunction with symptoms like fatigue, concentration difficulties, and confusion. More than 90% had received medical nutrition therapy for postbariatric hypoglycemia in the past.

CGM data were collected in the 22 individuals in two sequential phases: masked (no access to sensor glucose or alarms) and unmasked (access to sensor glucose and alarms for low or rapidly declining sensor glucose). Twelve participants wore a CGM (Dexcom G4 device) for a total of 28 days, whereas 10 wore a CGM (the Dexcom G6 device) for a total of 20 days.

The team observed that the percentage of time when the participants’ blood glucose was below 70 mg/dL – the definition of hypoglycemia – was significantly lower during the unmasked phase. 

Though CGM devices are not sensitive enough to serve as a diagnostic tool for hypoglycemia, “the alarms on CGM devices can provide some much-needed awareness,” Dr. Patti said. “After a detailed diagnosis, CGM devices can be a helpful tool to assess dietary patterns and make modifications that could reduce the severity of postbariatric hypoglycemia.”

If a patient frequently experiences hypoglycemia, they may not sense when their glucose levels drop, also known as hypoglycemia unawareness, according to Dr. Patti. Studies have found that postbariatric hypoglycemia remains underdiagnosed because most patients are asymptomatic. 

“The use of CGM devices may improve safety in postbariatric hypoglycemia, particularly for patients with hypoglycemia unawareness,” the researchers conclude.
 

Next steps 

Patients are more vulnerable to hypoglycemia after a sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery because these procedures involve removing the pylorus. This valve plays a crucial role in only allowing small portions of food to enter the intestine and prevents sudden spikes in blood glucose.

Without the pylorus, large amounts of food directly enter the intestine and soon result in large amounts of glucose getting absorbed, according to Sriram Machineni, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, who was not affiliated with the study.

“The pancreas then goes into overdrive and produces a lot of insulin, which continues reducing sugar levels,” Dr. Machineni said. “That is what causes hypoglycemia.”

Dr. Patti and associates are next working on research using CGM-derived data to investigate how different types of meals, physical activities, and other factors could influence glucose metabolism patterns in patients with hypoglycemia.

The study was funded by Dexcom, a manufacturer of continuous glucose monitoring systems. Dr. Patti reported receiving grant funding from the Diabetes Research Center.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new discovery of differences between the eyes of people with and without diabetes could point to new approaches for treating diabetic keratopathy, as well as other diabetes-related wound healing problems.

Vision loss caused by diabetes arises primarily from retinopathy, but up to 70% of people with diabetes also experience corneal problems, including keratopathy and neuropathy. Diabetic keratopathy involves impairments in epithelial wound healing, barrier function, and tear production, along with epithelial erosions and keratitis. As a result, the cornea may heal more slowly and less completely following an injury or procedures such as cataract surgery or laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy.

The abnormal wound healing is caused by impaired limbal epithelial stem cells, and the new research, published online in Diabetologia, involved isolation of those cells from 30 donor eyes of humans with and 23 without diabetes. Significant differences were found in DNA methylation between the cells of those two groups. Specifically, the WNT5A gene was hypermethylated at the promotor region in the diabetic cells and its protein markedly repressed.

However, treatment with various approaches, including exogenous WNT5A methylation inhibitors and a nanoconjugate that inhibits WNT5A suppression, improved corneal epithelial wound healing as well as expression of the limbic epithelial stem cells.

“Overall, [the] Wnt-5a [protein] is a new corneal epithelial wound healing stimulator that can be targeted to improve wound healing and stem cells in the diabetic cornea,” wrote Ruchi Shah, PhD, of the Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The finding represents more cellular changes than researchers had previously been aware of, study senior author Alexander Ljubimov, PhD, DSc, director of the eye program at the Institute, said in a statement.

“The discovery does not affect gene sequence but entails specific DNA modifications altering gene expression – what are known as epigenetic alterations,” he said.

In the experiments, treatment of the impaired diabetic limbal epithelial cells with the exogenous Wnt-5a accelerated wound healing by 1.4-fold (P < .05), compared with untreated cells and reduced healing time in diabetic organ-ultured corneas by 37% (P < .05).

Treatment with the DNA methylation inhibitor zebularine also increased levels of Wnt-5a in the diabetic limbic epithelial cells by 37% (P < .01), dose-dependently stimulated wound healing by 60% at 24 hours (P < .01), and improved wound healing by 30% in diabetic organ-cultured corneas.

The finding of Wnt-5a as a new diabetic corneal marker regulating wound healing and stem cell function may have implications for other diabetes complications involving impaired wound healing, including diabetic foot ulcers, as they share similar neurovascular, sensory, and immunological compromise with diabetic eye disease, Dr. Shah and colleagues wrote.

“Novel therapies to reverse both types of epigenetic silencing could benefit corneal function and may also prove to be beneficial in other wound healing–related diabetic complications,” they wrote.

The investigators are now working on combination therapies that target both mRNA and DNA methylation in hopes of obtaining even better wound healing.

“Our goal is to develop topical, sustained-release drugs for corneal wound healing,” said Dr. Ljubimov. “Drugs that are [Food and Drug Administration] approved and could be easily applied may be one of the most promising approaches for effective future therapies.”

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute. The authors reported no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Fifth pregnancy, first baby.

After four pregnancies resulted in losses – and doing things as natural as possible and leaving it up to the birds, bees, and fate – my husband and I decided to explore in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Drugs to direct my follicles to produce more eggs, an egg retrieval procedure, genetic testing of our embryos, a quick procedure to remove a residual uterine septum from my uterus, drugs to thicken my endometrial lining to prepare my body to receive an embryo, an embryo transfer, steroids to suppress my immune system so my body would accept the pregnancy, blood thinner shots to promote blood flow to the baby, and 10 weeks of progesterone in oil shots later and we’re days away from welcoming our first baby into our lives.

In short, there’s more than one way to define “miracle baby.”

Global estimates say 48 million couples and 186 million individuals struggle with infertility. On average, 2 million infants born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology and the demand for treatments like IVF have doubled in the last decade.

Now the need for treatments outweighs clinician availability. “We have about 1,250 practicing fertility physicians in the U.S. to serve the whole country, which is highly inadequate,” said Eduardo Hariton, MD, a reproductive endocrinology physician in San Francisco and managing director of the U.S. Fertility Innovation Fund. “We have people that want to get care waiting 1 to 3 months to be seen.”

Dr. Hariton explains that U.S. IVF clinics are performing around 250,000 to 300,000 IVF cycles per year and need to be doing a million-plus to meet demand. This, plus the cost of fertility treatments – an average IVF cycle runs $23,500 and the majority of patients need multiple cycles to conceive – keeps the barrier to entry high.

Enter technology: New advances are on the way to help the assisted fertility process to run smoother and be less costly. “The field is really coming into an age of great progress and innovation,” added S. Zev Williams, MD, PhD, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and Infertility at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

I’m personally grateful that such technology exists. Here is a look at some recent game changers in reproductive tech and what the future may hold.
 

AI will help, of course

Fertility treatments involve endless analysis, diagnosis, and recommendations – dozens if not hundreds of decisions from each physician for each patient. Human action and reaction can affect this process, Dr. Hariton explained.

For example, if he hyperstimulated a woman during the follicle growing stage of her egg retrieval and ended up with eggs too large to retrieve, Dr. Hariton said he may subconsciously be more inclined to be extra cautious with his patients the week after, and vice versa.

This is where AI can help. “Rather than me making decisions from a couple of thousands of cycles of experience, I get to leverage hundreds of thousands of cycles from different providers over different people,” said Dr. Hariton. “I get to use all the data from that patient today – her age, her weight, what happened last cycle, how she’s doing – and make a very objective decision about the optimal time to give that woman or that couple the best outcome possible.”

AI can also assist with tasks like embryo grading. “Once our embryos are made in the lab, we usually have an embryologist looking at those embryos, grading them on a three-variable scale, and then picking the nicest one for transfer,” said Dr. Hariton. Machine learning computer vision software can help doctors select the best embryo.

Many of these AI products are in trials in the United States and some AI-based technology is already being used in fertility labs, especially in other countries. “ALife recently launched a suite of products to help with their decisions during stimulation that can help with the quality KPIs [key performance indicators] in the lab,” said Dr. Hariton. “There’s also a company that does AI-based predictions of success to give patients a better estimate called Univfy.” More AI products are still in development or awaiting Food and Drug Administration clearance.
 

Robots lend a hand

Like artificial intelligence, robots can be a big help in the IVF lab. Columbia University Fertility Center recently became the first to use an articulated (ART) robot to handle precise and highly repetitive work.

“IVF, from the initial point, involves creating these special plates where embryos can grow, and you do that by making little droplets,” said Dr. Williams. “It’s very time-consuming to create tons of these little droplets for the embryos to grow.” Thus, the lab created a robot to help squirt drops of the media substance required to sustain embryos in a way that is 10 times more precise than that of a trained embryologist.

“It’s a win-win because you allow the robots to do things better than a human can and this allows the humans to do things that a robot just can’t do,” explained Dr. Williams. He and his team began using this technology in the beginning of November 2022.

Dr. Williams sees ART robots being used in many more parts of the fertility treatment journey along the way, like preparing eggs after they are retrieved and performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), with the robot injecting the sperm into the egg.

Launching with the plate making, said Dr. Williams, is a low stakes entry point for robotic technology in the lab. “It allows us to introduce robotics to automate and optimize each step along the way, but to do so in the safest possible way.”

Dr. Williams estimates that robots will have their hands on actual eggs and sperm in 5 years.
 

Updates in genetic testing

Currently, if a couple wants to have their embryos genetically tested, also known as preimplantation genetic testing, each embryo must be frozen, then a biopsy of that embryo is performed and sent to the lab.

“It takes time to get the results,” said Dr. Williams. “The whole time you’re waiting, you don’t know if you’re going to have any embryos that are transferable or if next month you’re going to have to do another IVF cycle.”

Columbia researchers recently developed a new in-house test that can determine if a fetus or embryo has the right number of chromosomes. This STORK (Short-read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) can be performed without freezing embryos and sending them out, which Dr. Williams said can save couples money and time, as they won’t necessarily need to do a separate embryo transfer cycle and can transfer an embryo in the same cycle. “You can test in the morning and transfer in the afternoon,” said Dr. Williams.

The test is currently awaiting approval and will first be used to test miscarriage samples to see if embryos were genetically normal or not, which he said should cost around $200 vs. the $2,000 to $4,000 it can cost to have fetal tissue sent to the lab – and insurance doesn’t cover the procedure until after a second or third miscarriage.

This, said Dr. Williams, should be in the field in less than a year, and he estimates that the test will be used for fresh embryos in about a year and a half.
 

Sperm collection made simpler

Typically, a man delivers a sperm sample in a room at an IVF clinic or by collecting a sample at home and rushing it to the clinic before it degrades, which Dr. Williams said can happen in as little as 15 minutes.

In 2020, Dr. Williams and his team began using a custom at-home sperm collection box that houses sperm in a recyclable foam container that holds a sample cup, which is filled with special sperm-supporting media, at an angle that prevents evaporation and maintains temperature and pH. This allows patients to collect samples in the comfort of their homes and increases the clock to 3 hours.

“It’s great for the patients because it’s much more comfortable,” said Dr. Williams, who notes that having to “perform” on site can be stressful for men. Studies the team has conducted have shown sperm collected in this manner have a better success rate than those collected in the lab, and 90% of Columbia’s Fertility Center patients are now providing sperm samples this way.

Similar innovations to deliver sperm, like Protex, are now on the market, while companies like myLabBox and Legacy are offering at-home sperm testing kits to mail in for a full semen analysis.
 

At-home monitoring: More and better

Wearable reproductive health devices are also helping more women get pregnant. “I am very excited about biometric data harnessed in wearables to predict periods, ovulation, and fertility,” said Amander Clark, PhD, director of the UCLA Center for Reproductive Science, Health, and Education, Los Angeles.

The Tempdrop Fertility and Ovulation Tracker, for instance, is a wearable sensor with an accompanying charting app that helps a woman identify her most fertile days to conceive. The Bellabeat Ivy is a women’s health smart bracelet with a strong focus on tracking a woman’s cycle and fertility, pregnancy, and postnatal symptoms. And Mirvie, which is currently in development, is a blood test that will be able to predict pregnancy complications earlier.

Physicians are also looking to move as much of the lab experience as they can into a patient’s home, which streamlines processes while offering privacy and comfort. For example, Dr. Hariton, who runs a strategic venture capital fund for physicians, said his team is currently working with a company that does remote ultrasounds.

And Mira, an at-home hormone monitor, uses patented AI algorithms to accurately measure the levels of major reproductive health hormones (E3G, LH, PdG, FSH) in urine, said Meir Olcha, MD, chief medical officer at Sama Fertility. The product recently completed a clinical trial, which showed it was a viable alternative to blood serum for patients undergoing IVF.
 

Stem cells could make eggs ageless

Research shows that a woman’s egg quality decreases gradually but significantly starting at age 32 and more rapidly after 37. Sperm quality may also decrease with age. A possible workaround: Scientists are actively researching how to create eggs and sperm from stem cells.

“I think getting eggs from stem cells will happen in the future,” said Dr. Hariton, who notes that this type of technology would be a game changer in his clinic. “It will make some of the hardest diagnoses that I have – which is on a daily basis, ‘I’m so sorry, you’re in premature menopause’ or ‘I don’t think we’re going to be successful getting you pregnant with your own eggs; here are some other options like donor eggs’ – much better,” he added. And stem cells are currently being used to research causes of infertility.

Clinics like UCLA have already been making strides. “We are using stem cells to identify new genes required for reproduction and to define the role of these genes in human fertility and infertility,” said Dr. Clark, a member of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA, who recently led a study in this arena. “In vitro gametogenesis (IVG), another stem cell technology, is currently used in the research lab to understand causes of infertility.”

These stem cell-based embryo models, she said, can help researchers understand the first few days of embryo development after an embryo implants and be used to provide critical information on causes of early pregnancy loss or birth defects.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fifth pregnancy, first baby.

After four pregnancies resulted in losses – and doing things as natural as possible and leaving it up to the birds, bees, and fate – my husband and I decided to explore in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Drugs to direct my follicles to produce more eggs, an egg retrieval procedure, genetic testing of our embryos, a quick procedure to remove a residual uterine septum from my uterus, drugs to thicken my endometrial lining to prepare my body to receive an embryo, an embryo transfer, steroids to suppress my immune system so my body would accept the pregnancy, blood thinner shots to promote blood flow to the baby, and 10 weeks of progesterone in oil shots later and we’re days away from welcoming our first baby into our lives.

In short, there’s more than one way to define “miracle baby.”

Global estimates say 48 million couples and 186 million individuals struggle with infertility. On average, 2 million infants born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology and the demand for treatments like IVF have doubled in the last decade.

Now the need for treatments outweighs clinician availability. “We have about 1,250 practicing fertility physicians in the U.S. to serve the whole country, which is highly inadequate,” said Eduardo Hariton, MD, a reproductive endocrinology physician in San Francisco and managing director of the U.S. Fertility Innovation Fund. “We have people that want to get care waiting 1 to 3 months to be seen.”

Dr. Hariton explains that U.S. IVF clinics are performing around 250,000 to 300,000 IVF cycles per year and need to be doing a million-plus to meet demand. This, plus the cost of fertility treatments – an average IVF cycle runs $23,500 and the majority of patients need multiple cycles to conceive – keeps the barrier to entry high.

Enter technology: New advances are on the way to help the assisted fertility process to run smoother and be less costly. “The field is really coming into an age of great progress and innovation,” added S. Zev Williams, MD, PhD, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and Infertility at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

I’m personally grateful that such technology exists. Here is a look at some recent game changers in reproductive tech and what the future may hold.
 

AI will help, of course

Fertility treatments involve endless analysis, diagnosis, and recommendations – dozens if not hundreds of decisions from each physician for each patient. Human action and reaction can affect this process, Dr. Hariton explained.

For example, if he hyperstimulated a woman during the follicle growing stage of her egg retrieval and ended up with eggs too large to retrieve, Dr. Hariton said he may subconsciously be more inclined to be extra cautious with his patients the week after, and vice versa.

This is where AI can help. “Rather than me making decisions from a couple of thousands of cycles of experience, I get to leverage hundreds of thousands of cycles from different providers over different people,” said Dr. Hariton. “I get to use all the data from that patient today – her age, her weight, what happened last cycle, how she’s doing – and make a very objective decision about the optimal time to give that woman or that couple the best outcome possible.”

AI can also assist with tasks like embryo grading. “Once our embryos are made in the lab, we usually have an embryologist looking at those embryos, grading them on a three-variable scale, and then picking the nicest one for transfer,” said Dr. Hariton. Machine learning computer vision software can help doctors select the best embryo.

Many of these AI products are in trials in the United States and some AI-based technology is already being used in fertility labs, especially in other countries. “ALife recently launched a suite of products to help with their decisions during stimulation that can help with the quality KPIs [key performance indicators] in the lab,” said Dr. Hariton. “There’s also a company that does AI-based predictions of success to give patients a better estimate called Univfy.” More AI products are still in development or awaiting Food and Drug Administration clearance.
 

Robots lend a hand

Like artificial intelligence, robots can be a big help in the IVF lab. Columbia University Fertility Center recently became the first to use an articulated (ART) robot to handle precise and highly repetitive work.

“IVF, from the initial point, involves creating these special plates where embryos can grow, and you do that by making little droplets,” said Dr. Williams. “It’s very time-consuming to create tons of these little droplets for the embryos to grow.” Thus, the lab created a robot to help squirt drops of the media substance required to sustain embryos in a way that is 10 times more precise than that of a trained embryologist.

“It’s a win-win because you allow the robots to do things better than a human can and this allows the humans to do things that a robot just can’t do,” explained Dr. Williams. He and his team began using this technology in the beginning of November 2022.

Dr. Williams sees ART robots being used in many more parts of the fertility treatment journey along the way, like preparing eggs after they are retrieved and performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), with the robot injecting the sperm into the egg.

Launching with the plate making, said Dr. Williams, is a low stakes entry point for robotic technology in the lab. “It allows us to introduce robotics to automate and optimize each step along the way, but to do so in the safest possible way.”

Dr. Williams estimates that robots will have their hands on actual eggs and sperm in 5 years.
 

Updates in genetic testing

Currently, if a couple wants to have their embryos genetically tested, also known as preimplantation genetic testing, each embryo must be frozen, then a biopsy of that embryo is performed and sent to the lab.

“It takes time to get the results,” said Dr. Williams. “The whole time you’re waiting, you don’t know if you’re going to have any embryos that are transferable or if next month you’re going to have to do another IVF cycle.”

Columbia researchers recently developed a new in-house test that can determine if a fetus or embryo has the right number of chromosomes. This STORK (Short-read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) can be performed without freezing embryos and sending them out, which Dr. Williams said can save couples money and time, as they won’t necessarily need to do a separate embryo transfer cycle and can transfer an embryo in the same cycle. “You can test in the morning and transfer in the afternoon,” said Dr. Williams.

The test is currently awaiting approval and will first be used to test miscarriage samples to see if embryos were genetically normal or not, which he said should cost around $200 vs. the $2,000 to $4,000 it can cost to have fetal tissue sent to the lab – and insurance doesn’t cover the procedure until after a second or third miscarriage.

This, said Dr. Williams, should be in the field in less than a year, and he estimates that the test will be used for fresh embryos in about a year and a half.
 

Sperm collection made simpler

Typically, a man delivers a sperm sample in a room at an IVF clinic or by collecting a sample at home and rushing it to the clinic before it degrades, which Dr. Williams said can happen in as little as 15 minutes.

In 2020, Dr. Williams and his team began using a custom at-home sperm collection box that houses sperm in a recyclable foam container that holds a sample cup, which is filled with special sperm-supporting media, at an angle that prevents evaporation and maintains temperature and pH. This allows patients to collect samples in the comfort of their homes and increases the clock to 3 hours.

“It’s great for the patients because it’s much more comfortable,” said Dr. Williams, who notes that having to “perform” on site can be stressful for men. Studies the team has conducted have shown sperm collected in this manner have a better success rate than those collected in the lab, and 90% of Columbia’s Fertility Center patients are now providing sperm samples this way.

Similar innovations to deliver sperm, like Protex, are now on the market, while companies like myLabBox and Legacy are offering at-home sperm testing kits to mail in for a full semen analysis.
 

At-home monitoring: More and better

Wearable reproductive health devices are also helping more women get pregnant. “I am very excited about biometric data harnessed in wearables to predict periods, ovulation, and fertility,” said Amander Clark, PhD, director of the UCLA Center for Reproductive Science, Health, and Education, Los Angeles.

The Tempdrop Fertility and Ovulation Tracker, for instance, is a wearable sensor with an accompanying charting app that helps a woman identify her most fertile days to conceive. The Bellabeat Ivy is a women’s health smart bracelet with a strong focus on tracking a woman’s cycle and fertility, pregnancy, and postnatal symptoms. And Mirvie, which is currently in development, is a blood test that will be able to predict pregnancy complications earlier.

Physicians are also looking to move as much of the lab experience as they can into a patient’s home, which streamlines processes while offering privacy and comfort. For example, Dr. Hariton, who runs a strategic venture capital fund for physicians, said his team is currently working with a company that does remote ultrasounds.

And Mira, an at-home hormone monitor, uses patented AI algorithms to accurately measure the levels of major reproductive health hormones (E3G, LH, PdG, FSH) in urine, said Meir Olcha, MD, chief medical officer at Sama Fertility. The product recently completed a clinical trial, which showed it was a viable alternative to blood serum for patients undergoing IVF.
 

Stem cells could make eggs ageless

Research shows that a woman’s egg quality decreases gradually but significantly starting at age 32 and more rapidly after 37. Sperm quality may also decrease with age. A possible workaround: Scientists are actively researching how to create eggs and sperm from stem cells.

“I think getting eggs from stem cells will happen in the future,” said Dr. Hariton, who notes that this type of technology would be a game changer in his clinic. “It will make some of the hardest diagnoses that I have – which is on a daily basis, ‘I’m so sorry, you’re in premature menopause’ or ‘I don’t think we’re going to be successful getting you pregnant with your own eggs; here are some other options like donor eggs’ – much better,” he added. And stem cells are currently being used to research causes of infertility.

Clinics like UCLA have already been making strides. “We are using stem cells to identify new genes required for reproduction and to define the role of these genes in human fertility and infertility,” said Dr. Clark, a member of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA, who recently led a study in this arena. “In vitro gametogenesis (IVG), another stem cell technology, is currently used in the research lab to understand causes of infertility.”

These stem cell-based embryo models, she said, can help researchers understand the first few days of embryo development after an embryo implants and be used to provide critical information on causes of early pregnancy loss or birth defects.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fifth pregnancy, first baby.

After four pregnancies resulted in losses – and doing things as natural as possible and leaving it up to the birds, bees, and fate – my husband and I decided to explore in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Drugs to direct my follicles to produce more eggs, an egg retrieval procedure, genetic testing of our embryos, a quick procedure to remove a residual uterine septum from my uterus, drugs to thicken my endometrial lining to prepare my body to receive an embryo, an embryo transfer, steroids to suppress my immune system so my body would accept the pregnancy, blood thinner shots to promote blood flow to the baby, and 10 weeks of progesterone in oil shots later and we’re days away from welcoming our first baby into our lives.

In short, there’s more than one way to define “miracle baby.”

Global estimates say 48 million couples and 186 million individuals struggle with infertility. On average, 2 million infants born in the United States each year are conceived through assisted reproductive technology and the demand for treatments like IVF have doubled in the last decade.

Now the need for treatments outweighs clinician availability. “We have about 1,250 practicing fertility physicians in the U.S. to serve the whole country, which is highly inadequate,” said Eduardo Hariton, MD, a reproductive endocrinology physician in San Francisco and managing director of the U.S. Fertility Innovation Fund. “We have people that want to get care waiting 1 to 3 months to be seen.”

Dr. Hariton explains that U.S. IVF clinics are performing around 250,000 to 300,000 IVF cycles per year and need to be doing a million-plus to meet demand. This, plus the cost of fertility treatments – an average IVF cycle runs $23,500 and the majority of patients need multiple cycles to conceive – keeps the barrier to entry high.

Enter technology: New advances are on the way to help the assisted fertility process to run smoother and be less costly. “The field is really coming into an age of great progress and innovation,” added S. Zev Williams, MD, PhD, chief of the division of reproductive endocrinology and Infertility at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

I’m personally grateful that such technology exists. Here is a look at some recent game changers in reproductive tech and what the future may hold.
 

AI will help, of course

Fertility treatments involve endless analysis, diagnosis, and recommendations – dozens if not hundreds of decisions from each physician for each patient. Human action and reaction can affect this process, Dr. Hariton explained.

For example, if he hyperstimulated a woman during the follicle growing stage of her egg retrieval and ended up with eggs too large to retrieve, Dr. Hariton said he may subconsciously be more inclined to be extra cautious with his patients the week after, and vice versa.

This is where AI can help. “Rather than me making decisions from a couple of thousands of cycles of experience, I get to leverage hundreds of thousands of cycles from different providers over different people,” said Dr. Hariton. “I get to use all the data from that patient today – her age, her weight, what happened last cycle, how she’s doing – and make a very objective decision about the optimal time to give that woman or that couple the best outcome possible.”

AI can also assist with tasks like embryo grading. “Once our embryos are made in the lab, we usually have an embryologist looking at those embryos, grading them on a three-variable scale, and then picking the nicest one for transfer,” said Dr. Hariton. Machine learning computer vision software can help doctors select the best embryo.

Many of these AI products are in trials in the United States and some AI-based technology is already being used in fertility labs, especially in other countries. “ALife recently launched a suite of products to help with their decisions during stimulation that can help with the quality KPIs [key performance indicators] in the lab,” said Dr. Hariton. “There’s also a company that does AI-based predictions of success to give patients a better estimate called Univfy.” More AI products are still in development or awaiting Food and Drug Administration clearance.
 

Robots lend a hand

Like artificial intelligence, robots can be a big help in the IVF lab. Columbia University Fertility Center recently became the first to use an articulated (ART) robot to handle precise and highly repetitive work.

“IVF, from the initial point, involves creating these special plates where embryos can grow, and you do that by making little droplets,” said Dr. Williams. “It’s very time-consuming to create tons of these little droplets for the embryos to grow.” Thus, the lab created a robot to help squirt drops of the media substance required to sustain embryos in a way that is 10 times more precise than that of a trained embryologist.

“It’s a win-win because you allow the robots to do things better than a human can and this allows the humans to do things that a robot just can’t do,” explained Dr. Williams. He and his team began using this technology in the beginning of November 2022.

Dr. Williams sees ART robots being used in many more parts of the fertility treatment journey along the way, like preparing eggs after they are retrieved and performing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), with the robot injecting the sperm into the egg.

Launching with the plate making, said Dr. Williams, is a low stakes entry point for robotic technology in the lab. “It allows us to introduce robotics to automate and optimize each step along the way, but to do so in the safest possible way.”

Dr. Williams estimates that robots will have their hands on actual eggs and sperm in 5 years.
 

Updates in genetic testing

Currently, if a couple wants to have their embryos genetically tested, also known as preimplantation genetic testing, each embryo must be frozen, then a biopsy of that embryo is performed and sent to the lab.

“It takes time to get the results,” said Dr. Williams. “The whole time you’re waiting, you don’t know if you’re going to have any embryos that are transferable or if next month you’re going to have to do another IVF cycle.”

Columbia researchers recently developed a new in-house test that can determine if a fetus or embryo has the right number of chromosomes. This STORK (Short-read Transpore Rapid Karyotyping) can be performed without freezing embryos and sending them out, which Dr. Williams said can save couples money and time, as they won’t necessarily need to do a separate embryo transfer cycle and can transfer an embryo in the same cycle. “You can test in the morning and transfer in the afternoon,” said Dr. Williams.

The test is currently awaiting approval and will first be used to test miscarriage samples to see if embryos were genetically normal or not, which he said should cost around $200 vs. the $2,000 to $4,000 it can cost to have fetal tissue sent to the lab – and insurance doesn’t cover the procedure until after a second or third miscarriage.

This, said Dr. Williams, should be in the field in less than a year, and he estimates that the test will be used for fresh embryos in about a year and a half.
 

Sperm collection made simpler

Typically, a man delivers a sperm sample in a room at an IVF clinic or by collecting a sample at home and rushing it to the clinic before it degrades, which Dr. Williams said can happen in as little as 15 minutes.

In 2020, Dr. Williams and his team began using a custom at-home sperm collection box that houses sperm in a recyclable foam container that holds a sample cup, which is filled with special sperm-supporting media, at an angle that prevents evaporation and maintains temperature and pH. This allows patients to collect samples in the comfort of their homes and increases the clock to 3 hours.

“It’s great for the patients because it’s much more comfortable,” said Dr. Williams, who notes that having to “perform” on site can be stressful for men. Studies the team has conducted have shown sperm collected in this manner have a better success rate than those collected in the lab, and 90% of Columbia’s Fertility Center patients are now providing sperm samples this way.

Similar innovations to deliver sperm, like Protex, are now on the market, while companies like myLabBox and Legacy are offering at-home sperm testing kits to mail in for a full semen analysis.
 

At-home monitoring: More and better

Wearable reproductive health devices are also helping more women get pregnant. “I am very excited about biometric data harnessed in wearables to predict periods, ovulation, and fertility,” said Amander Clark, PhD, director of the UCLA Center for Reproductive Science, Health, and Education, Los Angeles.

The Tempdrop Fertility and Ovulation Tracker, for instance, is a wearable sensor with an accompanying charting app that helps a woman identify her most fertile days to conceive. The Bellabeat Ivy is a women’s health smart bracelet with a strong focus on tracking a woman’s cycle and fertility, pregnancy, and postnatal symptoms. And Mirvie, which is currently in development, is a blood test that will be able to predict pregnancy complications earlier.

Physicians are also looking to move as much of the lab experience as they can into a patient’s home, which streamlines processes while offering privacy and comfort. For example, Dr. Hariton, who runs a strategic venture capital fund for physicians, said his team is currently working with a company that does remote ultrasounds.

And Mira, an at-home hormone monitor, uses patented AI algorithms to accurately measure the levels of major reproductive health hormones (E3G, LH, PdG, FSH) in urine, said Meir Olcha, MD, chief medical officer at Sama Fertility. The product recently completed a clinical trial, which showed it was a viable alternative to blood serum for patients undergoing IVF.
 

Stem cells could make eggs ageless

Research shows that a woman’s egg quality decreases gradually but significantly starting at age 32 and more rapidly after 37. Sperm quality may also decrease with age. A possible workaround: Scientists are actively researching how to create eggs and sperm from stem cells.

“I think getting eggs from stem cells will happen in the future,” said Dr. Hariton, who notes that this type of technology would be a game changer in his clinic. “It will make some of the hardest diagnoses that I have – which is on a daily basis, ‘I’m so sorry, you’re in premature menopause’ or ‘I don’t think we’re going to be successful getting you pregnant with your own eggs; here are some other options like donor eggs’ – much better,” he added. And stem cells are currently being used to research causes of infertility.

Clinics like UCLA have already been making strides. “We are using stem cells to identify new genes required for reproduction and to define the role of these genes in human fertility and infertility,” said Dr. Clark, a member of the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA, who recently led a study in this arena. “In vitro gametogenesis (IVG), another stem cell technology, is currently used in the research lab to understand causes of infertility.”

These stem cell-based embryo models, she said, can help researchers understand the first few days of embryo development after an embryo implants and be used to provide critical information on causes of early pregnancy loss or birth defects.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Up to one in four patients who undergo metabolic/bariatric surgery have less than 20% weight loss and patients need additional strategies to help them reach their goals.

In the new BARI-OPTIMISE trial, patients with poor weight loss after such surgery were randomized to the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide 3.0 mg/day or placebo. Liraglutide was safe and well-tolerated and led to a clinically meaningful 8% further reduction in bodyweight, compared with placebo, report Jessica Mok, BMBS, MPhil, University College London and colleagues, in their study published online in JAMA Surgery.

Weight loss in BARI-OPTIMISE (–9.2 kg or –20 lb) was greater than the weight loss in the earlier GRAVITAS trial of 80 patients with persistent or recurrent type 2 diabetes randomized to liraglutide 1.8 mg/day or placebo, Dr. Mok and colleagues note. And more patients in BARI-OPTIMISE than in GRAVITAS lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (72% vs. 46%).

“Our findings therefore suggest that liraglutide, 3.0 mg, may have a role in the treatment of people with poor weight loss following metabolic surgery,” they write.  

However, newer gut hormone–based therapies with greater efficacy than liraglutide 3.0 mg (for example, semaglutide and tirzepatide) are emerging, they add.

Therefore, “randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of novel pharmaceutical agents will be needed to generate the evidence required to deliver individualized precision-medicine approaches to patients with obesity and suboptimal weight loss following metabolic surgery,” the researchers urge.
 

‘Extremely welcome tools for severe obesity’

“The additional weight loss with associated favorable metabolic changes achieved with liraglutide reported in [the BARI-OPTIMISE and GRAVITAS trials] is extremely welcomed with the new antiobesity medications ... adding another effective tool in the toolbox for the treatment of severe obesity,” Paulina Salminen, MD, PhD, Turku (Finland) University Hospital, and Ali Aminian, MD, Cleveland Clinic, write in an accompanying editorial.

However, they also point to limitations of the current trial.

Almost all patients (65 of 70 [93%]) underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in BARI-OPTIMISE. However, “there are safe and more effective surgical options that can be considered in patients with suboptimal initial clinical response or recurrent weight gain” after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, such as “conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), duodenal switch, or single-anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass,” they note.

The small number of patients and low follow-up rate of 81% (57 of 70 patients) for the short intervention are other limitations.

“In treating a patient with ischemic heart disease, a combination of lifestyle intervention, risk factor modification, pharmacotherapy, coronary stenting, and open-heart surgery may be needed,” note the editorialists. “A very similar concept would be applicable in the management of severe obesity.”

In the past, they add, there was not much progress with combination therapies for obesity because of a lack of effective antiobesity medications.

However, “with the better availability of potent [antiobesity medications] now and in the near future, the practice of combination therapy will grow as [metabolic and bariatric surgery] and [antiobesity medications] work in synergy in both treating severe obesity and hopefully also in enabling increased access to effective obesity treatment,” Dr. Salminen and Dr. Aminian speculate.

“Hopefully, based on findings of future studies and the use of global uniform criteria for evaluating treatment outcomes,” the editorialists conclude, “we can develop practice guidelines to assist and optimize phenotype-tailored multimodal treatment of this heterogeneous chronic disease of severe obesity.”
 

Most patients had severe obesity, sleeve gastrectomy

Individuals with poor weight loss after surgery have increased appetite coupled with an unfavorable gut hormone profile, including lower circulating GLP-1 levels, Dr. Mok and colleagues note.

In 2018 and 2019, they recruited and randomized 70 adults who had had metabolic surgery at two hospitals in London at least a year earlier and had 20% or less weight loss, compared with the day of surgery, as well as a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response.

Patients were excluded if they had type 1 diabetes or were taking a GLP-1 agonist, insulin, or other medications that can affect weight, among other criteria.

The mean age of patients was 48 years, and 74% were women; 13% had type 2 diabetes.

Participants had a mean weight of 120 kg, and a mean body mass index of 43 kg/m² (57% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²). Almost all patients (93%) had had sleeve gastrectomy and 7% had RYGB.

On average, they had surgery 4.3 years earlier and had lost 7% of their initial weight.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive liraglutide 3.0 mg or placebo daily for 24 weeks. All patients received dietary counseling and aimed for a 500 kcal/day energy deficit. They were encouraged to do a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise each week.

The primary endpoint, percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 24, was –8.8% with liraglutide versus –0.53% with placebo.

Adverse effects were predominantly gastrointestinal in nature and were more frequent with liraglutide (80%) than placebo (57%). There were no serious adverse events.

This study was funded by the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Novo Nordisk provided the liraglutide and placebo pens. Author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Salminen has reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aminian has reported receiving received grants and personal fees from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Jain: I’m Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver. This is Dr. Christopher Gardner, a nutritional scientist at Stanford. He is the author of many publications, including the widely cited SWAP-MEAT study. He was also a presenter at the American Diabetes Association conference in San Diego in 2023.

We’ll be talking about his work and the presentation that he did classifying different kinds of diets as well as the pluses and minuses of a plant-based diet versus an animal-based diet. Welcome, Dr Gardner.

Dr. Gardner: Glad to be here.

Dr. Jain: Let’s get right into this. There’s obviously been a large amount of talk, both in the lay media and in the scientific literature, on plant-based diets versus animal-based diets. When it comes to an individual living with diabetes, does one diet make more sense than the other?

Dr. Gardner: I think this is one of those false dichotomies. It’s really not all one or all the other. Two of my favorite sayings are “with what” and “instead of what.” You may be thinking, I’m really going to go for animal based. I know it’s low carb. I have diabetes. I know animal foods have few carbs in them.

That’s true. But think of some of the more and the less healthy animal foods. Yogurt is a great choice for an animal food. Fish is a great choice for an animal food with omega-3s. Chicken McNuggets, not so much.

Then, you switch to the plant side and say: “I’ve heard all these people talking about a whole-food, plant-based diet. That sounds great. I’m thinking broccoli and chickpeas.”

I know there’s somebody out there saying: “I just had a Coke. Isn’t that plant based? I just had a pastry. Isn’t that full of plants?” It doesn’t really take much to think about this, but it’s not as dichotomous as animal versus plant.

Dr. Jain: There is, obviously, a good understanding regarding what actually constitutes the diet. Initially, people were saying that animal-based diets are really bad from a cardiovascular perspective. But now, some studies are suggesting that it may not be true. What’s your take on that?

Dr. Gardner: Again, if you think “with what” or “instead of what,” microbiome is a super-hot topic. That’s really fiber and fermented food, which are only plants. Saturated fat, despite all the controversy, raises your blood cholesterol. It’s more prevalent in animal foods than in plant foods.

Are there any great nutrients in animal foods? Sure. There’s calcium in dairy products for osteoporosis. There’s iron. Actually, people can get too much iron, which can be a pro-oxidant in levels that are too high.

The American Heart Association, in particular, which I’m very involved with, came out with new guidelines in 2021. It was very plant focused. The top of the list was vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and protein. When it came to protein, it was mostly from lentils, beans, and grains.

Dr. Jain: That’s good to know. Let’s talk about protein. We often hear about how somebody on a plant-based diet only can never have all the essential amino acids and the amount of protein that one needs. Whether it’s for general everyday individuals or even more so for athletes or bodybuilders, you cannot get enough good-quality protein from a plant-based diet.

Is there any truth to that? If not, what would you suggest for everyday individuals on a plant-based diet?

Dr. Gardner: This one drives me nuts. Please stop obsessing about protein. This isn’t a very scientific answer, but go watch the documentary Game Changers, which is all about vegan athletes. There are some pretty hokey things in that film that are very unscientific.

Let’s go back to basics, since we only have a couple of minutes together. It is a myth that plants don’t have all the amino acids, including all nine essential amino acids. I have several YouTube rants about this if anybody wants to search “Gardner Stanford protein.” All plant foods have all nine essential amino acids and all 20 amino acids.

There is a modest difference. Grains tend to be a little low in lysine, and beans tend to be a little low in methionine. Part of this has to do with how much of a difference is a little low. If you go to protein requirements that were written up in 2005 by the Institute of Medicine, you’ll see that the estimated average requirement for adults is 0.66 g/kg of body weight.

If we recommended the estimated average requirement for everyone, and everyone got it, by definition, half the population would be deficient. We have recommended daily allowances. The recommended daily allowances include two standard deviations above the estimated average requirement. Why would we do that? It’s a population approach.

If that’s the goal and everybody got it, you’d actually still have the tail of the normal distribution that would be deficient, which would be about 2.5%. The flip side of that argument is how many would exceed their requirement? That’s 97.5% of the population who would exceed their requirement if they got the recommended daily allowance.

The recommended daily allowance translates to about 45 g of protein per day for women and about 55 g of protein per day for men. Today, men and women in the United States get 80 g, 90 g, and 100 g of protein per day. What I hear them say is: “I’m not sure if I need the recommended daily allowance. I feel like I’m extra special or I’m above the curve and I want to make sure I’m getting enough.”

The recommended daily allowance already has a safety buffer in it. It was designed that way.

Let’s flip to athletes just for a second. Athletes want to be more muscular and make sure they’re supporting their activity. Americans get 1.2-1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day, which is almost double.

Athletes don’t eat as many calories as the average American does. If they’re working out to be muscular, they’re not eating 2,000 or 2,500 calories per day. I have a Rose Bowl football player teaching assistant from a Human Nutrition class at Stanford. He logged what he was eating for his football workouts. He was eating 5,000 calories per day. He was getting 250 g of protein per day, without any supplements or shakes.

I really do think this whole protein thing is a myth. As long as you get a reasonable amount of variety in your diet, there is no problem meeting your protein needs. Vegetarians? Absolutely no problem because they’re getting dairy and some eggs and things. Even vegans are likely fine. They would have to pay a little more attention to this, but I know many very strong, healthy vegans.

Dr. Jain: This is so helpful, Dr Gardner. I know that many clinicians, including myself, will find this very helpful, including when we talk to our patients and counsel them on their requirements. Thanks for sharing that.

Final question for you. We know people who are on either side of the extreme: either completely plant based or completely animal based. For a majority of us that have some kind of a happy medium, what would your suggestions be as far as the macronutrient distribution that you would recommend from a mixed animal- and plant-based diet? What would be the ideal recommendations here?

Dr. Gardner: We did a huge weight loss study with people with prediabetes. It was as low in carbs as people could go and as low in fat as people could go. That didn’t end up being the ketogenic level or the low-fat, vegan level. That ended up being much more moderate.

We found that people were successful either on low carb or low fat. Interestingly, on both diets, protein was very similar. Let’s not get into that since we just did a lot of protein. The key was a healthy low carb or a healthy low fat. I actually think we have a lot of wiggle room there. Let me build on what you said just a moment ago.

I really don’t think you need to be vegan to be healthy. We prefer the term whole food, plant based. If you’re getting 70% or 80% of your food from plants, you’re fine. If you really want to get the last 5%, 10%, or 15% all from plants, the additional benefit is not going to be large. You might want to do that for the environment or animal rights and welfare, but from a health perspective, a whole-food, plant-based diet leaves room for some yogurt, fish, and maybe some eggs for breakfast instead of those silly high-carb breakfasts that most Americans eat.

I will say that animal foods have no fiber. Given what a hot topic the microbiome is these days, the higher and higher you get in animal food, it’s going to be really hard to get antioxidants, most of which are in plants, and very hard to get enough fiber, which is good for the microbiome.

That’s why I tend to follow along the lines of a whole-food, plant-based diet that leaves some room for meat and animal-sourced foods, which you could leave out and be fine. I wouldn’t go in the opposite direction to the all-animal side.

Dr. Jain: That was awesome. Thank you so much, Dr Gardner. Final pearl of wisdom here. When clinicians like us see patients with diabetes, what should be the final take-home message that we can counsel our patients about?

Dr. Gardner: That’s a great question. I don’t think it’s really so much animal or plants; it’s actually type of carbohydrate. There’s a great paper out of JAMA in 2019 or 2020 by Shan and colleagues. They looked at the proportion of calories from proteins, carbs, and fats over about 20 years, and they looked at the subtypes.

Very interestingly, protein from animal foods is about 10% of calories; from plants, about 5%; mono-, poly-, and saturated fats are all about 10% of calories; and high-quality carbohydrates are about 10% of calories. What’s left is 40% of calories from crappy carbohydrates. We eat so many calories from added sugars and refined grains, and those are plant-based. Added sugars and refined grains are plant-based.

In terms of a lower-carbohydrate diet, there is an immense amount of room for cutting back on that 40%. What would you do with that? Would you eat more animal food? Would you eat more plant food? This is where I think we have a large amount of wiggle room. If the patients could get rid of all or most of that 40%, they could pick some eggs, yogurt, fish, and some high-fat foods. They could pick avocados, nuts, seeds, and olive oil or they could have more broccoli, chickpeas, tempeh, and tofu.

There really is a large amount of wiggle room. The key – can we please get rid of the elephant in the room, which is plant food – is all that added sugar and refined grain.

Dr. Jain is an endocrinologist and clinical instructor University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Gardner is a professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Jain reported numerous conflicts of interest with various companies; Dr. Gardner reported receiving research funding from Beyond Meat.


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

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists, such as semaglutide, surged among U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes in recent years, through March 2022, and dethroned dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as the top incretin-based drug class, according to a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from more than 1 million individuals.

By January–March 2022, 56.6% of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes prescribed an incretin-based treatment were taking a GLP-1 agonist and 38.7% were taking a DPP-4 inhibitor, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, and colleagues reported in an abstract released in advance of the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

These usage rates sharply diverged from the earliest period the researchers examined – 4 years earlier in January–March 2018 – when DPP-4 inhibitors were used by 62.4% of adults with type 2 diabetes on any incretin-based regimen and 37.6% were taking a GLP-1 agonist.

This shift was largely driven by accumulating evidence for clinically meaningful weight loss with GLP-1 agonists, especially semaglutide when used for people with type 2 diabetes as Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) or for treating people with obesity as Wegovy (Novo Nordisk).
 

Market share of GLP-1 agonists ‘likely to expand’ further

“The importance of the DPP-4 inhibitor class will further decrease when effective alternatives such as GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors can be used,” said Alexander Kutz, MD, a coauthor of the report, in a statement released by EASD.

“The market share of GLP-1 agonists is likely to expand in patients with type 2 diabetes,” especially those who also have obesity, said Dr. Kutz, who like Dr. Patorno is a pharmacoepidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Incretin-based agents currently account for roughly a third of all medications prescribed to people with type 2 diabetes, the authors said. GLP-1 is an incretin hormone, and receptor agonists mimic its action. The DPP-4 enzyme inactivates incretin hormones, and so inhibiting the enzyme boosts incretin activity.

The obesity-driven shift in positioning of agents for people with type 2 diabetes will likely extend to tirzepatide (Mounjaro), which acts as both a GLP-1 agonist and has agonist activity on the receptor for another incretin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The Food and Drug Administration approved tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in May 2022, too late for inclusion in the data the researchers reviewed. Plus, tirzepatide prescribing may lag for a few years as clinicians gain experience, and some might await results from the cardiovascular outcomes trial SURPASS-CVOT , said Dr. Kutz. SURPASS-CVOT has enrolled more than 13,000 adults with type 2 diabetes and is currently scheduled to finish by October 2024.
 

Injected semaglutide had the biggest gain

The study by Dr. Patorno and colleagues included 1,065,592 U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes taking an incretin-based medication in the Clinformatics Data Mart database maintained by Optum on claims it processed on behalf of various U.S. commercial insurers, including insurers that service certain Medicare beneficiaries.

The claims data had granularity for specific agents in the GLP-1 agonist class. Injected semaglutide, given once weekly, spiked from no use early in 2018 to a third of GLP-1 agonist use by the start of 2022.

However, use of liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk), a daily subcutaneous injection, dropped from a 44.2% share in early 2018 to 10.0% in early 2022. Dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly), a weekly injection, showed a small increase, from a 35.2% share in 2018 to 42.1% in 2022, and oral semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) jumped from no use in 2018 to a 7.7% share in 2022. Among the DPP-4 inhibitors, sitagliptin (Januvia, Merck) was most commonly used, followed by linagliptin (Tradjenta, Boehringer Ingelheim) and saxagliptin (Onglyza, AstraZeneca). Use of all three DPP-4 inhibitors fell from 2018 to 2022.

Additional analyses showed that, compared with people starting a DPP-4 inhibitor during the period examined, those who started a GLP-1 agonist were 54%-64% more likely to have obesity and 18%-46% more likely to receive care from an endocrinologist. Those starting a GLP-1 agonist were also significantly less likely to have chronic kidney disease or dementia.

Although Dr. Kutz and Dr. Patorno foresee continued increases in the use of agents that act as GLP-1 agonists in U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes, they also stressed the ongoing role for sitagliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

This class “may still be preferred in older and multimorbid patients at higher risk for frailty,” such as patients who live in nursing homes, they said in the EASD statement. 

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Patorno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kutz reported receiving an educational grant from Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide and liraglutide.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

The tirzepatide weight-loss juggernaut barreled forward with a report on July 27 of positive top-line results from a pair of pivotal trials in adults with obesity or overweight but without diabetes.

The primary weight-loss results from the SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4 studies in a combined total of 1,249 randomized adults add to positive data previously reported from more than 3,400 randomized patients in SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2, also in people with overweight or obesity. The results from these four trials collectively create a compelling picture of safety and efficacy as tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) nears a decision, expected later in 2023, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval as a weight-loss agent in people with or without type 2 diabetes.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the indication of improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes.
 

SURMOUNT-3 included intensive lifestyle management

SURMOUNT-3 initially enrolled 806 adults with obesity or overweight plus one or more weight-related comorbidities who received a 12-week intensive lifestyle-intervention program. People who lost at least 5% of their baseline weight could continue, and in the second phase, investigators randomized 579 people to 72 weeks of treatment with weekly injections of tirzepatide or placebo while they continued the lifestyle intervention. In the intervention group, tirzepatide was gradually up-titrated to a 10-mg or 15-mg weekly dose, depending on tolerance.

People taking tirzepatide lost an average of 21.1% of body weight after 72 weeks from time of randomization, compared with an average weight gain of 3.3% among controls, an overall incremental loss of 24.5% of body weight with tirzepatide, compared with placebo, one of the trial’s two primary endpoints. The second primary endpoint was the percentage of people achieving at least a 5% weight loss from time of randomization, which occurred in 94.4% of people taking tirzepatide and 10.7% of controls.
 

SURMOUNT-4 tested tirzepatide discontinuation

SURMOUNT-4 started with a 36-week lead-in period during which 783 adults with obesity or overweight plus comorbidities received weekly injections of tirzepatide, which led to an average weight loss of 21.1% from baseline. Researchers then randomized 670 of these participants to continue weekly tirzepatide for another 52 weeks or continue placebo injections. At the end of the 1-year randomized phase, those who continued tirzepatide had an average additional weight loss of 6.7%, while those who switched to placebo had an average 14.8% weight gain during the 52-week phase, producing a placebo-adjusted weight loss with tirzepatide of 21.4% for this phase.

As a secondary endpoint, those who received tirzepatide continuously for 88 weeks (the 36-week run-in plus the 52-week randomized phase) had an overall average weight loss from baseline of 26.0%. In SURMOUNT-3, participants randomized to receive tirzepatide during the second phase had an overall average weight loss, compared with baseline, before the lifestyle-intervention lead-in of 26.6% during 84 total weeks of treatment. These weight-loss levels, 26.0% and 26.6%, were “the highest level of weight loss observed in the SURMOUNT program to date,” said a Lilly official in a written statement. The findings from this trial also highlighted the importance of ongoing tirzepatide treatment to maintain weight loss.

Safety findings from both trials were consistent with prior studies of tirzepatide, as well as other agents that act by mimicking the action of human incretin hormones, the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. The most common adverse effects with tirzepatide were gastrointestinal and were generally mild to moderate in severity. Tirzepatide is a twincretin that has agonist activity for both the GLP-1 receptor and the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor.

According to Lilly’s announcement, the SURMOUNT-3 results will be reported at Obesity Week, being held Oct. 14-17 in Dallas, and the SURMOUNT-4 findings will be reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2023 annual meeting, being held Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany. 

The SURMOUNT trials have been funded by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro).

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

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Chronic pancreatitis raises the risk for pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive complications, and preterm labor, according to a large study.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective analysis of hospital discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database between 2009 and 2019 was conducted.
• The sample included 3,094 pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis and roughly 40.8 million pregnancies without this condition.
• The study focused on primary maternal outcomes and primary perinatal outcomes in pregnancies affected by chronic pancreatitis after accounting for relevant covariates.

TAKEAWAY:

• Chronic pancreatitis pregnancies had elevated rates of gestational diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63), gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 2.48), preterm labor (aOR, 3.10), and small size for gestational age (aOR, 2.40).
• Women with chronic pancreatitis and a history of renal failure were more prone to gestational hypertensive complications (aOR, 20.09).
• Women with alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis had a 17-fold higher risk for fetal death (aOR, 17.15).
• Pregnancies with chronic pancreatitis were associated with longer hospital stays and higher hospital costs.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides novel insights into the impact of chronic pancreatitis on maternal and fetal health. The implications of our findings are critical for health care professionals, particularly those involved in preconception counseling. Pregnant women with chronic pancreatitis should be under the care of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers,” the authors advise.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chengu Niu, MD, with Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, N.Y. It was published online July 18 in Digestive and Liver Disease. The study had no specific funding.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors note potential inaccuracies because of coding in the National Inpatient Sample database, a lack of detailed information regarding medication use, and a lack of follow-up clinical information. The findings are specific to the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.