Clinical Endocrinology News

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stiff arteries may cause, rather than be a consequence of, metabolic syndrome, results of a longitudinal birth cohort study show.

New research published in the American Journal of Physiology found that arterial stiffness occurred before the presence of metabolic syndrome. A progressive rise in stiffness was associated with a cumulative increase in risk for the condition among the 3,862 people studied over a 7-year period starting in late adolescence. 

Results revealed a notable sex difference: Arterial stiffness increased the risk for metabolic syndrome by 9% for males but only by 1% for females. Males were also five times more likely than females to have metabolic syndrome.

“It seems metabolic syndrome has a new risk factor we haven’t thought about,” said author Andrew O. Agbaje, MD, clinical epidemiologist and researcher, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

Arterial stiffness previously was associated with metabolic syndrome in numerous studies. But the new work is the first to find evidence for causality, Dr. Agbaje said in an interview.

“Interventions have focused on addressing the components of metabolic syndrome such as obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Agbaje said. “But arterial stiffness may independently cause metabolic syndrome in 1 out of 10 male teens. I encourage clinicians to think about its role in preventing and managing metabolic syndrome, not just as a consequence but as a cause.”

The results have important implications for physicians, according to Sissi Cossio, MD, pediatric endocrinologist, Pediatrix Medical Group, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

“The fact that arterial stiffness progression preceded metabolic syndrome is important because it could be used as an earlier detection marker of disease,” Dr. Cossio said.

To conduct the study, Dr. Agbaje and his research team used data collected by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children at the University of Bristol in England. Arterial stiffness was measured using carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, the speed of blood flow from the upper to the lower aorta. They assessed for metabolic syndrome by the presence of three or more risk factors, including high cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high trunk fat mass.

Participants were studied starting in gestation in the early 1990s, and were measured for arterial stiffness and metabolic syndrome starting at age 17 through age 24.

The overall risk for metabolic syndrome doubled within the 7-year study period of follow-up between 2009 and 2017, indicating that early intervention during adolescence is essential. 

Dr. Agbaje recommended that physicians start treating arterial stiffness and other markers of metabolic syndrome as early as possible, noting that, “potentially irreversible cardiovascular health damage might occur after age 17.” 

Arterial stiffness can be negated through physical activity and dietary changes that lower inflammation. Physicians should refer at-risk teens to a preventative clinic where they can be monitored and receive repeated measurements of arterial stiffness, lipid levels, blood pressure, glucose levels, and obesity every 3 months, Dr. Agbaje said.

“The health progress made after a year would be an indicator for physicians whether a more aggressive therapeutic approach is needed since it takes about 7 years for the risk of metabolic syndrome attributed to arterial stiffness to worsen remarkably in the young population,” he said.

Dr. Agbaje pointed to a few potential pathways through which arterial stiffness might create a disease cascade. Stiffer arteries disrupt blood flow to the liver and pancreas, which could adversely affect their functioning, he said. Damage to these organs may increase insulin and LDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk for metabolic syndrome.

Arterial stiffness also can lead to higher blood pressure and insulin resistance, potentially inducing musculogenesis and vasculogenesis. The resulting excessive muscle mass may also increase the risk for the condition, he said.

Dr. Cossio acknowledged that treatments for metabolic syndrome become less effective with age, but emphasized that reversal is possible in adults with lifestyle changes and medications.

“Early detection will give patients the best chance at reversing the disease, and [primary care physicians] are a key factor in this process,” she said.

Dr. Cossio said that at-risk teens should receive treatment in a weight loss or endocrinology clinic. Treatment may include behavioral, surgical, and pharmacotherapeutic interventions.

“Teens with signs of insulin resistance and impaired fasting glucose, acanthosis, or prediabetes, should start metformin as the first line of therapy,” Dr. Cossio said. 

For weight management, she recommends antiobesity medications such as liraglutide, semaglutide, and the combination of phentermine/topiramate in children aged 12 years or older. In teenagers 16 years or older, phentermine alone is another option.

The research group that conducted the study reported received funding from the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the North Savo Regional Fund and Central Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Aarne Koskelo Foundation, the Foundation for Pediatric Research, and the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, among others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

People with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease who maintain a vegetarian diet for 6 months or longer show significant improvements in key risk factors, including cholesterol, glycemic control, and body weight, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows.

©KaterynaSednieva/Thinkstock

“To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first that generates evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes in people affected by cardiovascular diseases,” report the authors. The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The greatest improvements in hemoglobin A1c and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were observed in individuals with type 2 diabetes and people at high risk of cardiovascular disease, highlighting the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” they say.

Poor diet is well-established as increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, although data has linked vegetarian diets to cardiovascular disease prevention in the general population, research on the effectiveness of such diets in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease is lacking.

“To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been conducted to investigate the association of vegetarian diets with outcomes among people with CVD – indeed, research here has primarily focused on observational studies,” writes Tian Wang, RD, and colleagues at the University of Sydney.
 

Greater decreases in LDL-C, A1c, and body weight with vegetarian diets

For the meta-analysis, researchers identified 20 randomized controlled trials involving vegetarian diets that included 1,878 adults with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease and included measurements of LDL-C, A1c, or systolic blood pressure.

The studies were conducted in the United States, Asia, Europe, and New Zealand between 1990 and 2021. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 291 participants.

The mean range age of participants was 28-64 years. Studies included patients with cardiovascular disease (four studies), diabetes (seven studies), and those with at least two cardiovascular risk factors (nine studies).

The mean duration of the dietary intervention was 25.4 weeks (range 2-24 months). The most commonly prescribed diets were vegan (plant-based foods only), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (excluded meat, poultry, seafood, and dairy products, but allowed eggs), and lacto-vegetarian (same as previous but allowed dairy products).

Overall, those who consumed a vegetarian diet for an average of 6 months, versus comparison diets, had significantly greater decreases in LDL-C (6.6 mg/dL beyond the reduction achieved with standard therapy); A1c (0.24%); and body weight (3.4 kg), but the reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.1 mmHg) was not significantly greater.

Assessment of the overall certainty of evidence evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool showed a moderate level of evidence for reductions in LDL-C and A1c with the vegetarian diet.

Lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of the five trials restricted energy intake.

Of note, vegetarian diets were most effective for achieving glycemic control among people with type 2 diabetes and leading to improvements in weight among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease as well as those with type 2 diabetes.

The effects “suggest that vegetarian diets might have a synergistic [or at least nonantagonistic] use in potentiating the effects of optimal drug therapy in the prevention and treatment of a range of cardiometabolic diseases,” the authors write.

Although previous studies have shown similar improvements associated with a vegetarian diet, most studies did not stratify populations based on disease status, type of vegetarian diet, or comparison diet, the authors note.

The lack of improvement in systolic blood pressure is consistent with previous meta-analyses of vegetarian diets in general and suggests that salt intake may be the more important factor for those measures.

“[The meta-analysis] suggests that diet quality plays a major role in lowering blood pressure independent of animal food consumption, as the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] ... trial demonstrated,” the authors note.
 

Decreases in medication dose with vegetarian diet

Although most patients were taking medications to manage hypertension, hyperglycemia, and/or dyslipidemia at trial enrollment in as many as eight of the studies, the vegetarian diet intervention resulted in a decrease in medication dose.

In fact, medication use could obscure the favorable effects of vegetarian diets, which could have a larger effect size, the authors speculate.

“This hypothesis is supported by two randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis that required patients not to take medication that could influence cardiometabolic outcomes, [and] these studies significantly improved systolic blood pressure and LDL-C,” they write.
 

Not all vegetarian diets are healthy

Although there are numerous variations in vegetarian diets, ranging from vegan diets that eliminate all animal food to pesco-vegetarian diets that allow fish or seafood, most that are well-balanced can provide health benefits including lower saturated fat, L-carnitine, and choline (precursors of the atherogenic TMAO), and other benefits that might explain the improvements seen in the meta-analysis.  

The diets may also be high in dietary fiber, mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemical, and have lower glycemic index scores.

Of note, 12 studies in the meta-analysis emphasized low-fat content, which the authors speculate may have contributed to the improvements observed in LDC-C.

Specifically, lacto-ovo vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reduction in LDL-C (–14.1 mg/dL); however, four out of five of the trials restricted energy intake, which could have also played a role in improvements.

Importantly, not all vegetarian diets are healthy, and the authors caution about some that allow, for instance, deep-fried foods rich in trans-fatty acids and salt, such as tempura vegetables, potentially increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease.

They note that “more than one-third of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not emphasize the importance of consuming minimally processed plant-based whole foods.”

Overall, however, the fact that the greatest improvements in A1c and LDL-C were seen in patients with type 2 diabetes and those at high risk of CVD “highlight[s] the potential protective and synergistic effects of vegetarian diets for the primary prevention of CVD.”

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

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

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations from the Joint British Thyroid Association/Society add to the increasingly general consensus that liothyronine (LT3) may be useful in combination with standard levothyroxine (LT4) in the treatment of hypothyroidism in some patients whose symptoms persist after standard treatment, despite a lack of evidence of benefit in clinical trials.

“Most patients with primary hypothyroidism respond well to levothyroxine replacement therapy,” recommends the joint association in the consensus statement, by Rupa Ahluwalia, MBBS, MD, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom, and colleagues, recently published in Clinical Endocrinology.

“For the small minority of patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate biochemical replacement with levothyroxine, a trial of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy under specialist supervision may be appropriate,” they wrote.

The ongoing debate over the use of LT3/LT4 combination therapy has persisted for more than 2 decades, with at least 16 randomized controlled trials and four meta-analyses failing to show any significant benefit of the combined regimen in key quality of life and cognitive function outcomes compared with LT4 monotherapy. However, many patients continue to report benefits with combination therapy, so the issue has not been laid to rest.

Wilmar M. Wiersinga, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of endocrinology at the University of Amsterdam, said in an interview: “The scientific community is divided as to whether or not the LT4/LT3 combination therapy has any value whatsoever, whereas the pressure from individual patients and patient associations on physicians – both general practitioners and specialists/endocrinologists – can be very high [in terms of] demanding prescriptions for the combination therapy.

“I welcome this joint statement very much because it provides guidance, especially for clinicians, on a hotly debated issue,” he said.
 

Persistent symptoms drive pursuit of alternatives

T4 refers to the hormone thyroxine made in the body, and LT4 to the pharmaceutical replacement product for that hormone, levothyroxine. Similarly, T3 refers to the hormone triiodothyronine, made in the body and a precursor to thyroxine, and LT3 refers to its pharmaceutical replacement, liothyronine.

Driving the continued demand from some patients with hypothyroidism and interest among clinicians is the relatively high proportion of patients who continue to experience symptoms even after the normalization of biochemical levels after treatment with LT4, which resolves symptoms in most patients within weeks of therapy.

Those who don’t improve report common ongoing symptoms: fatigue, sleepiness, memory problems, cognitive difficulties (brain fog), and weight gain.

However, with 60% of people commonly having one or more of the same symptoms even when their thyroid levels are normal, pinpointing the actual causes is a challenge, the societies report.

In the absence of other diagnoses, clinicians often turn to alternative treatment strategies, which, as well as addition of LT3 to LT4, also include the use of desiccated thyroid extract (DTE).

DTE was the medication first used to treat hypothyroidism years ago, originally made from pig glands. There are now several prescription medications made from the desiccated (dried) thyroid glands of animals, including brands such as Armour Thyroid, NP Thyroid, and WP Thyroid.

The practice of prescribing combination therapy has already been deemed acceptable by both the European Thyroid Association (ETA) and American Thyroid Association (ATA). The latter recommended in its 2014 guidelines that the combination of LT3/LT4 therapy may be trialed in exceptional circumstances or among patients who fail to improve with LT4 alone.

In following suit, the new Joint British Thyroid Association/Society consensus statement cautions that, first and foremost, “most patients with hypothyroidism should be treated with levothyroxine alone.”

However, combination LT3/LT4 therapy may be considered an option under key important conditions, including:

• When a diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism (documented TSH ≥ 10 mU/L and/or low FT4 pretreatment with thyroid replacement hormones) is established. If overt hypothyroidism cannot be confirmed, patients are recommended to first have a trial without LT4 and a repeat serum TSH after 6 weeks.
• For patients with overt hypothyroidism, prior to consideration of LT3, the dose of LT4 should be optimized to a TSH in the target range of 0.3-2.0 mU/L for 3 to 6 months. In some patients, it may be acceptable to have serum TSH below reference range (e.g., 0.1-0.3 mU/L), but not fully suppressed in the long term, instead of starting LT3.
• A trial of combination therapy may be warranted with confirmed overt hypothyroidism and persistent symptoms despite LT4 treatment and the exclusion of other comorbidities.
• Clinicians should not feel obliged to start LT3 or continue LT3 medication provided by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest.
• When opting for LT3, a minimum of 3 to 6 months on the combination therapy should be considered before determining response to the trial, and for assessment, monitoring with serum TSH only is recommended.
• Patients should be counseled regarding the risk of arrhythmias, accelerated bone loss, and stroke associated with iatrogenic hyperthyroidism and the need for long-term monitoring.
• Given the short half-life of LT3, splitting doses across 24  hours is recommended for many people.

The joint association does not recommend the use of desiccated thyroid extract (which appears to be surprisingly on the rise, as recently reported).
 

Reasons for persistent symptoms are murky; don’t forget menopause

The key reason for the emphasis on making sure patients have overt hypothyroidism before trying LT3 is that patients are often treated with LT4 despite not even having hypothyroidism to begin with.

“In reality, many patients with subclinical hypothyroidism [TSH 5-10  mU/L] are now treated with levothyroxine, fueling a rise in its use, such that it is now the third most frequently prescribed medication in the United Kingdom,” the authors explained.

“In contrast, few patients are advised to seek lifestyle and exercise changes, despite the fact that there is positive evidence to support their benefits,” they continued.

In a recent podcast, Anthony Bianco, MD, a past president of the ATA, underscored another important factor complicating the ability to make conclusive hypothyroidism diagnoses in women: menopause.

“In my experience, the most confusing factor [in treatment decisions] is menopausal syndrome,” he said.

“The symptoms are very similar. Most patients with hypothyroidism are women. Are we getting close to menopause? Are we dealing with this? Is estrogen replacement therapy an option for this woman? Should we consult a colleague?” Dr. Bianco explained.

And there are other possibilities, including anemia, iron deficiency, other autoimmune diseases, and diabetes, he added.

“Exclude everything that you know,” Dr. Bianco said. “Use your common sense.”

Although the new statement echoes other guidelines, the recommendations are helpful amid the ever-present debate, said Dr. Wiersinga, the endocrinologist from the Netherlands.

Because of the pressure to try combination therapy, from patients and patient associations, the statement’s position that doctors must stand by their clinical judgment is important, he noted.

“I think many doctors would welcome the recommendation that doctors are not obliged to prescribe any medication that they believe is not in the patient’s best interest, and, in particular, that ‘doctors have no obligation to continue to provide prescriptions for LT3 or desiccated thyroid extract that have been started by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest,’” he asserted.

“Also, the recommendation that an endocrinologist should be involved when a trial of T3 is considered is very valuable,” he added, noting the potential scenario of patients going to a general practitioner if turned down by a specialist for LT3.

An international consensus statement published by members of the ATA, ETA, and British Thyroid Association in 2021 further set forth recommendations for the development of future trials of LT3/LT4 combination therapy to establish more conclusive guidance. 

Senior author Simon H. Pearce has reported receiving speaker fees from IBSA, Merck, Quidel, Berlin-Chemie, and consulting for Apitope/Worg and Immunovant/Roivant on issues unrelated to T3. The other authors of the consensus statement have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wiersinga has reporting consulting for Prolevi Bio.
 

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

New recommendations from the Joint British Thyroid Association/Society add to the increasingly general consensus that liothyronine (LT3) may be useful in combination with standard levothyroxine (LT4) in the treatment of hypothyroidism in some patients whose symptoms persist after standard treatment, despite a lack of evidence of benefit in clinical trials.

“Most patients with primary hypothyroidism respond well to levothyroxine replacement therapy,” recommends the joint association in the consensus statement, by Rupa Ahluwalia, MBBS, MD, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom, and colleagues, recently published in Clinical Endocrinology.

“For the small minority of patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate biochemical replacement with levothyroxine, a trial of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy under specialist supervision may be appropriate,” they wrote.

The ongoing debate over the use of LT3/LT4 combination therapy has persisted for more than 2 decades, with at least 16 randomized controlled trials and four meta-analyses failing to show any significant benefit of the combined regimen in key quality of life and cognitive function outcomes compared with LT4 monotherapy. However, many patients continue to report benefits with combination therapy, so the issue has not been laid to rest.

Wilmar M. Wiersinga, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of endocrinology at the University of Amsterdam, said in an interview: “The scientific community is divided as to whether or not the LT4/LT3 combination therapy has any value whatsoever, whereas the pressure from individual patients and patient associations on physicians – both general practitioners and specialists/endocrinologists – can be very high [in terms of] demanding prescriptions for the combination therapy.

“I welcome this joint statement very much because it provides guidance, especially for clinicians, on a hotly debated issue,” he said.
 

Persistent symptoms drive pursuit of alternatives

T4 refers to the hormone thyroxine made in the body, and LT4 to the pharmaceutical replacement product for that hormone, levothyroxine. Similarly, T3 refers to the hormone triiodothyronine, made in the body and a precursor to thyroxine, and LT3 refers to its pharmaceutical replacement, liothyronine.

Driving the continued demand from some patients with hypothyroidism and interest among clinicians is the relatively high proportion of patients who continue to experience symptoms even after the normalization of biochemical levels after treatment with LT4, which resolves symptoms in most patients within weeks of therapy.

Those who don’t improve report common ongoing symptoms: fatigue, sleepiness, memory problems, cognitive difficulties (brain fog), and weight gain.

However, with 60% of people commonly having one or more of the same symptoms even when their thyroid levels are normal, pinpointing the actual causes is a challenge, the societies report.

In the absence of other diagnoses, clinicians often turn to alternative treatment strategies, which, as well as addition of LT3 to LT4, also include the use of desiccated thyroid extract (DTE).

DTE was the medication first used to treat hypothyroidism years ago, originally made from pig glands. There are now several prescription medications made from the desiccated (dried) thyroid glands of animals, including brands such as Armour Thyroid, NP Thyroid, and WP Thyroid.

The practice of prescribing combination therapy has already been deemed acceptable by both the European Thyroid Association (ETA) and American Thyroid Association (ATA). The latter recommended in its 2014 guidelines that the combination of LT3/LT4 therapy may be trialed in exceptional circumstances or among patients who fail to improve with LT4 alone.

In following suit, the new Joint British Thyroid Association/Society consensus statement cautions that, first and foremost, “most patients with hypothyroidism should be treated with levothyroxine alone.”

However, combination LT3/LT4 therapy may be considered an option under key important conditions, including:

• When a diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism (documented TSH ≥ 10 mU/L and/or low FT4 pretreatment with thyroid replacement hormones) is established. If overt hypothyroidism cannot be confirmed, patients are recommended to first have a trial without LT4 and a repeat serum TSH after 6 weeks.
• For patients with overt hypothyroidism, prior to consideration of LT3, the dose of LT4 should be optimized to a TSH in the target range of 0.3-2.0 mU/L for 3 to 6 months. In some patients, it may be acceptable to have serum TSH below reference range (e.g., 0.1-0.3 mU/L), but not fully suppressed in the long term, instead of starting LT3.
• A trial of combination therapy may be warranted with confirmed overt hypothyroidism and persistent symptoms despite LT4 treatment and the exclusion of other comorbidities.
• Clinicians should not feel obliged to start LT3 or continue LT3 medication provided by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest.
• When opting for LT3, a minimum of 3 to 6 months on the combination therapy should be considered before determining response to the trial, and for assessment, monitoring with serum TSH only is recommended.
• Patients should be counseled regarding the risk of arrhythmias, accelerated bone loss, and stroke associated with iatrogenic hyperthyroidism and the need for long-term monitoring.
• Given the short half-life of LT3, splitting doses across 24  hours is recommended for many people.

The joint association does not recommend the use of desiccated thyroid extract (which appears to be surprisingly on the rise, as recently reported).
 

Reasons for persistent symptoms are murky; don’t forget menopause

The key reason for the emphasis on making sure patients have overt hypothyroidism before trying LT3 is that patients are often treated with LT4 despite not even having hypothyroidism to begin with.

“In reality, many patients with subclinical hypothyroidism [TSH 5-10  mU/L] are now treated with levothyroxine, fueling a rise in its use, such that it is now the third most frequently prescribed medication in the United Kingdom,” the authors explained.

“In contrast, few patients are advised to seek lifestyle and exercise changes, despite the fact that there is positive evidence to support their benefits,” they continued.

In a recent podcast, Anthony Bianco, MD, a past president of the ATA, underscored another important factor complicating the ability to make conclusive hypothyroidism diagnoses in women: menopause.

“In my experience, the most confusing factor [in treatment decisions] is menopausal syndrome,” he said.

“The symptoms are very similar. Most patients with hypothyroidism are women. Are we getting close to menopause? Are we dealing with this? Is estrogen replacement therapy an option for this woman? Should we consult a colleague?” Dr. Bianco explained.

And there are other possibilities, including anemia, iron deficiency, other autoimmune diseases, and diabetes, he added.

“Exclude everything that you know,” Dr. Bianco said. “Use your common sense.”

Although the new statement echoes other guidelines, the recommendations are helpful amid the ever-present debate, said Dr. Wiersinga, the endocrinologist from the Netherlands.

Because of the pressure to try combination therapy, from patients and patient associations, the statement’s position that doctors must stand by their clinical judgment is important, he noted.

“I think many doctors would welcome the recommendation that doctors are not obliged to prescribe any medication that they believe is not in the patient’s best interest, and, in particular, that ‘doctors have no obligation to continue to provide prescriptions for LT3 or desiccated thyroid extract that have been started by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest,’” he asserted.

“Also, the recommendation that an endocrinologist should be involved when a trial of T3 is considered is very valuable,” he added, noting the potential scenario of patients going to a general practitioner if turned down by a specialist for LT3.

An international consensus statement published by members of the ATA, ETA, and British Thyroid Association in 2021 further set forth recommendations for the development of future trials of LT3/LT4 combination therapy to establish more conclusive guidance. 

Senior author Simon H. Pearce has reported receiving speaker fees from IBSA, Merck, Quidel, Berlin-Chemie, and consulting for Apitope/Worg and Immunovant/Roivant on issues unrelated to T3. The other authors of the consensus statement have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wiersinga has reporting consulting for Prolevi Bio.
 

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

New recommendations from the Joint British Thyroid Association/Society add to the increasingly general consensus that liothyronine (LT3) may be useful in combination with standard levothyroxine (LT4) in the treatment of hypothyroidism in some patients whose symptoms persist after standard treatment, despite a lack of evidence of benefit in clinical trials.

“Most patients with primary hypothyroidism respond well to levothyroxine replacement therapy,” recommends the joint association in the consensus statement, by Rupa Ahluwalia, MBBS, MD, of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom, and colleagues, recently published in Clinical Endocrinology.

“For the small minority of patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate biochemical replacement with levothyroxine, a trial of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy under specialist supervision may be appropriate,” they wrote.

The ongoing debate over the use of LT3/LT4 combination therapy has persisted for more than 2 decades, with at least 16 randomized controlled trials and four meta-analyses failing to show any significant benefit of the combined regimen in key quality of life and cognitive function outcomes compared with LT4 monotherapy. However, many patients continue to report benefits with combination therapy, so the issue has not been laid to rest.

Wilmar M. Wiersinga, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of endocrinology at the University of Amsterdam, said in an interview: “The scientific community is divided as to whether or not the LT4/LT3 combination therapy has any value whatsoever, whereas the pressure from individual patients and patient associations on physicians – both general practitioners and specialists/endocrinologists – can be very high [in terms of] demanding prescriptions for the combination therapy.

“I welcome this joint statement very much because it provides guidance, especially for clinicians, on a hotly debated issue,” he said.
 

Persistent symptoms drive pursuit of alternatives

T4 refers to the hormone thyroxine made in the body, and LT4 to the pharmaceutical replacement product for that hormone, levothyroxine. Similarly, T3 refers to the hormone triiodothyronine, made in the body and a precursor to thyroxine, and LT3 refers to its pharmaceutical replacement, liothyronine.

Driving the continued demand from some patients with hypothyroidism and interest among clinicians is the relatively high proportion of patients who continue to experience symptoms even after the normalization of biochemical levels after treatment with LT4, which resolves symptoms in most patients within weeks of therapy.

Those who don’t improve report common ongoing symptoms: fatigue, sleepiness, memory problems, cognitive difficulties (brain fog), and weight gain.

However, with 60% of people commonly having one or more of the same symptoms even when their thyroid levels are normal, pinpointing the actual causes is a challenge, the societies report.

In the absence of other diagnoses, clinicians often turn to alternative treatment strategies, which, as well as addition of LT3 to LT4, also include the use of desiccated thyroid extract (DTE).

DTE was the medication first used to treat hypothyroidism years ago, originally made from pig glands. There are now several prescription medications made from the desiccated (dried) thyroid glands of animals, including brands such as Armour Thyroid, NP Thyroid, and WP Thyroid.

The practice of prescribing combination therapy has already been deemed acceptable by both the European Thyroid Association (ETA) and American Thyroid Association (ATA). The latter recommended in its 2014 guidelines that the combination of LT3/LT4 therapy may be trialed in exceptional circumstances or among patients who fail to improve with LT4 alone.

In following suit, the new Joint British Thyroid Association/Society consensus statement cautions that, first and foremost, “most patients with hypothyroidism should be treated with levothyroxine alone.”

However, combination LT3/LT4 therapy may be considered an option under key important conditions, including:

• When a diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism (documented TSH ≥ 10 mU/L and/or low FT4 pretreatment with thyroid replacement hormones) is established. If overt hypothyroidism cannot be confirmed, patients are recommended to first have a trial without LT4 and a repeat serum TSH after 6 weeks.
• For patients with overt hypothyroidism, prior to consideration of LT3, the dose of LT4 should be optimized to a TSH in the target range of 0.3-2.0 mU/L for 3 to 6 months. In some patients, it may be acceptable to have serum TSH below reference range (e.g., 0.1-0.3 mU/L), but not fully suppressed in the long term, instead of starting LT3.
• A trial of combination therapy may be warranted with confirmed overt hypothyroidism and persistent symptoms despite LT4 treatment and the exclusion of other comorbidities.
• Clinicians should not feel obliged to start LT3 or continue LT3 medication provided by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest.
• When opting for LT3, a minimum of 3 to 6 months on the combination therapy should be considered before determining response to the trial, and for assessment, monitoring with serum TSH only is recommended.
• Patients should be counseled regarding the risk of arrhythmias, accelerated bone loss, and stroke associated with iatrogenic hyperthyroidism and the need for long-term monitoring.
• Given the short half-life of LT3, splitting doses across 24  hours is recommended for many people.

The joint association does not recommend the use of desiccated thyroid extract (which appears to be surprisingly on the rise, as recently reported).
 

Reasons for persistent symptoms are murky; don’t forget menopause

The key reason for the emphasis on making sure patients have overt hypothyroidism before trying LT3 is that patients are often treated with LT4 despite not even having hypothyroidism to begin with.

“In reality, many patients with subclinical hypothyroidism [TSH 5-10  mU/L] are now treated with levothyroxine, fueling a rise in its use, such that it is now the third most frequently prescribed medication in the United Kingdom,” the authors explained.

“In contrast, few patients are advised to seek lifestyle and exercise changes, despite the fact that there is positive evidence to support their benefits,” they continued.

In a recent podcast, Anthony Bianco, MD, a past president of the ATA, underscored another important factor complicating the ability to make conclusive hypothyroidism diagnoses in women: menopause.

“In my experience, the most confusing factor [in treatment decisions] is menopausal syndrome,” he said.

“The symptoms are very similar. Most patients with hypothyroidism are women. Are we getting close to menopause? Are we dealing with this? Is estrogen replacement therapy an option for this woman? Should we consult a colleague?” Dr. Bianco explained.

And there are other possibilities, including anemia, iron deficiency, other autoimmune diseases, and diabetes, he added.

“Exclude everything that you know,” Dr. Bianco said. “Use your common sense.”

Although the new statement echoes other guidelines, the recommendations are helpful amid the ever-present debate, said Dr. Wiersinga, the endocrinologist from the Netherlands.

Because of the pressure to try combination therapy, from patients and patient associations, the statement’s position that doctors must stand by their clinical judgment is important, he noted.

“I think many doctors would welcome the recommendation that doctors are not obliged to prescribe any medication that they believe is not in the patient’s best interest, and, in particular, that ‘doctors have no obligation to continue to provide prescriptions for LT3 or desiccated thyroid extract that have been started by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice if they judge this not to be in the patient’s best interest,’” he asserted.

“Also, the recommendation that an endocrinologist should be involved when a trial of T3 is considered is very valuable,” he added, noting the potential scenario of patients going to a general practitioner if turned down by a specialist for LT3.

An international consensus statement published by members of the ATA, ETA, and British Thyroid Association in 2021 further set forth recommendations for the development of future trials of LT3/LT4 combination therapy to establish more conclusive guidance. 

Senior author Simon H. Pearce has reported receiving speaker fees from IBSA, Merck, Quidel, Berlin-Chemie, and consulting for Apitope/Worg and Immunovant/Roivant on issues unrelated to T3. The other authors of the consensus statement have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wiersinga has reporting consulting for Prolevi Bio.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Although the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, have been revolutionary advances for the treatment of obesity, the cost-effectiveness of these agents for treating both obesity and type 2 diabetes remains uncertain based on published analyses.

But potential future changes in the cost-effectiveness dynamics of GLP-1 agonists could tip the balance in their favor. These include lower drug prices and a more nuanced and inclusive assessment of cost-effectiveness that considers broader consequences of treatment with GLP-1 agonists that are not traditionally included in such analyses.

Costs to people with obesity that are generally not part of cost-effectiveness calculations include pain, disability, depression, and bias that affect employment, Carol H. Wysham, MD, said at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Other costs to society left out of conventional calculations are items such as the incremental cost for fuel to transport a heavier population and the carbon-footprint costs for the production and transportation of the excess food produced to feed an over-fed population, added Dr. Wysham, an endocrinologist with MultiCare and the Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Wash.
 

Analyses should include ‘things we don’t often think about’

“The impact of living with obesity is much greater than what we traditionally calculate in health economics,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, speaking from the floor during the session.

“Patient happiness and self-esteem are hard to measure and capture as cost impacts. We need to also add carbon dioxide effects and transportation costs, and governments are starting to get wise to this. How to run proper health economics analyses is the key question; we need to do better than what we currently do,” said Dr. Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Sattar is lead author of a recent analysis that highlights the overwhelming importance of improved weight management in adults as they age to reduce their risk of developing a broad range of chronic disorders.

“Most chronic conditions are, to differing extents, caused or exacerbated by excess adiposity,” was a conclusion of his report.

“It’s important to include the costs to society, including things we don’t often think about. No one has ever done a cost analysis that includes all the factors” cited by Dr. Wysham, said Irl B. Hirsch, MD, another speaker at the session. “No one includes obstructive sleep apnea, degenerative arthritis, and the downstream effects of a high body mass index.”

The GLP-1 agonists “are great” for both weight loss and glycemic control, said Dr. Hirsch, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle. “We can’t afford not to use them. These agents have been transformational.”
 

U.S. has the highest drug costs

Another key factor driving cost-effectiveness is, of course, the relatively high cost of the agents in the class, especially in the United States. Dr. Hirsch cited a recently published report in Obesity that quoted monthly U.S. costs of $804 for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide (Wegovy) and $1418 for daily 3.0-mg injections of liraglutide (Saxenda). Highlighting the relatively high cost of medications in the United States, the report cited a monthly price tag of $95 for the same semaglutide regimen in Turkey and a monthly cost of $252 for the same liraglutide regimen in Norway.

U.S. prices for agents in this class may start to deflate as soon as 2024, when one or more generic versions of liraglutide are expected, following expiration of the U.S. patent later in 2023, Dr. Wysham said.

Another pending trigger for lower costs may be the possible decision by the World Health Organization to designate liraglutide an “essential medicine” later in 2023, she noted. The WHO received an application for this designation from four U.S. clinicians and is considering it as part of its planned 2023 update to the WHO’s Essential Medicines List. Dr. Wysham predicted this designation would “press international pharmaceutical companies to produce [liraglutide] at a much lower cost.”

“I’m not saying that drug companies should not profit, but they should not do it on the backs of patients,” Dr. Wysham declared. “What do we measure by ‘cost-effectiveness?’ There are so many complications of obesity. For patients with diabetes and obesity we need to look for a little different economic policy.”

Dr. Wysham has reported being an adviser to Abbott and CeQur and receiving research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Hirsch has reported being a consultant for Abbott, Embecta, and Hagar, and receiving research funding from Dexcom and Insulet. Dr. Sattar has reported receiving consulting fees or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Although the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, have been revolutionary advances for the treatment of obesity, the cost-effectiveness of these agents for treating both obesity and type 2 diabetes remains uncertain based on published analyses.

But potential future changes in the cost-effectiveness dynamics of GLP-1 agonists could tip the balance in their favor. These include lower drug prices and a more nuanced and inclusive assessment of cost-effectiveness that considers broader consequences of treatment with GLP-1 agonists that are not traditionally included in such analyses.

Costs to people with obesity that are generally not part of cost-effectiveness calculations include pain, disability, depression, and bias that affect employment, Carol H. Wysham, MD, said at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Other costs to society left out of conventional calculations are items such as the incremental cost for fuel to transport a heavier population and the carbon-footprint costs for the production and transportation of the excess food produced to feed an over-fed population, added Dr. Wysham, an endocrinologist with MultiCare and the Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Wash.
 

Analyses should include ‘things we don’t often think about’

“The impact of living with obesity is much greater than what we traditionally calculate in health economics,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, speaking from the floor during the session.

“Patient happiness and self-esteem are hard to measure and capture as cost impacts. We need to also add carbon dioxide effects and transportation costs, and governments are starting to get wise to this. How to run proper health economics analyses is the key question; we need to do better than what we currently do,” said Dr. Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Sattar is lead author of a recent analysis that highlights the overwhelming importance of improved weight management in adults as they age to reduce their risk of developing a broad range of chronic disorders.

“Most chronic conditions are, to differing extents, caused or exacerbated by excess adiposity,” was a conclusion of his report.

“It’s important to include the costs to society, including things we don’t often think about. No one has ever done a cost analysis that includes all the factors” cited by Dr. Wysham, said Irl B. Hirsch, MD, another speaker at the session. “No one includes obstructive sleep apnea, degenerative arthritis, and the downstream effects of a high body mass index.”

The GLP-1 agonists “are great” for both weight loss and glycemic control, said Dr. Hirsch, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle. “We can’t afford not to use them. These agents have been transformational.”
 

U.S. has the highest drug costs

Another key factor driving cost-effectiveness is, of course, the relatively high cost of the agents in the class, especially in the United States. Dr. Hirsch cited a recently published report in Obesity that quoted monthly U.S. costs of $804 for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide (Wegovy) and $1418 for daily 3.0-mg injections of liraglutide (Saxenda). Highlighting the relatively high cost of medications in the United States, the report cited a monthly price tag of $95 for the same semaglutide regimen in Turkey and a monthly cost of $252 for the same liraglutide regimen in Norway.

U.S. prices for agents in this class may start to deflate as soon as 2024, when one or more generic versions of liraglutide are expected, following expiration of the U.S. patent later in 2023, Dr. Wysham said.

Another pending trigger for lower costs may be the possible decision by the World Health Organization to designate liraglutide an “essential medicine” later in 2023, she noted. The WHO received an application for this designation from four U.S. clinicians and is considering it as part of its planned 2023 update to the WHO’s Essential Medicines List. Dr. Wysham predicted this designation would “press international pharmaceutical companies to produce [liraglutide] at a much lower cost.”

“I’m not saying that drug companies should not profit, but they should not do it on the backs of patients,” Dr. Wysham declared. “What do we measure by ‘cost-effectiveness?’ There are so many complications of obesity. For patients with diabetes and obesity we need to look for a little different economic policy.”

Dr. Wysham has reported being an adviser to Abbott and CeQur and receiving research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Hirsch has reported being a consultant for Abbott, Embecta, and Hagar, and receiving research funding from Dexcom and Insulet. Dr. Sattar has reported receiving consulting fees or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Although the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, have been revolutionary advances for the treatment of obesity, the cost-effectiveness of these agents for treating both obesity and type 2 diabetes remains uncertain based on published analyses.

But potential future changes in the cost-effectiveness dynamics of GLP-1 agonists could tip the balance in their favor. These include lower drug prices and a more nuanced and inclusive assessment of cost-effectiveness that considers broader consequences of treatment with GLP-1 agonists that are not traditionally included in such analyses.

Costs to people with obesity that are generally not part of cost-effectiveness calculations include pain, disability, depression, and bias that affect employment, Carol H. Wysham, MD, said at the recent scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Other costs to society left out of conventional calculations are items such as the incremental cost for fuel to transport a heavier population and the carbon-footprint costs for the production and transportation of the excess food produced to feed an over-fed population, added Dr. Wysham, an endocrinologist with MultiCare and the Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Wash.
 

Analyses should include ‘things we don’t often think about’

“The impact of living with obesity is much greater than what we traditionally calculate in health economics,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, speaking from the floor during the session.

“Patient happiness and self-esteem are hard to measure and capture as cost impacts. We need to also add carbon dioxide effects and transportation costs, and governments are starting to get wise to this. How to run proper health economics analyses is the key question; we need to do better than what we currently do,” said Dr. Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Sattar is lead author of a recent analysis that highlights the overwhelming importance of improved weight management in adults as they age to reduce their risk of developing a broad range of chronic disorders.

“Most chronic conditions are, to differing extents, caused or exacerbated by excess adiposity,” was a conclusion of his report.

“It’s important to include the costs to society, including things we don’t often think about. No one has ever done a cost analysis that includes all the factors” cited by Dr. Wysham, said Irl B. Hirsch, MD, another speaker at the session. “No one includes obstructive sleep apnea, degenerative arthritis, and the downstream effects of a high body mass index.”

The GLP-1 agonists “are great” for both weight loss and glycemic control, said Dr. Hirsch, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle. “We can’t afford not to use them. These agents have been transformational.”
 

U.S. has the highest drug costs

Another key factor driving cost-effectiveness is, of course, the relatively high cost of the agents in the class, especially in the United States. Dr. Hirsch cited a recently published report in Obesity that quoted monthly U.S. costs of $804 for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide (Wegovy) and $1418 for daily 3.0-mg injections of liraglutide (Saxenda). Highlighting the relatively high cost of medications in the United States, the report cited a monthly price tag of $95 for the same semaglutide regimen in Turkey and a monthly cost of $252 for the same liraglutide regimen in Norway.

U.S. prices for agents in this class may start to deflate as soon as 2024, when one or more generic versions of liraglutide are expected, following expiration of the U.S. patent later in 2023, Dr. Wysham said.

Another pending trigger for lower costs may be the possible decision by the World Health Organization to designate liraglutide an “essential medicine” later in 2023, she noted. The WHO received an application for this designation from four U.S. clinicians and is considering it as part of its planned 2023 update to the WHO’s Essential Medicines List. Dr. Wysham predicted this designation would “press international pharmaceutical companies to produce [liraglutide] at a much lower cost.”

“I’m not saying that drug companies should not profit, but they should not do it on the backs of patients,” Dr. Wysham declared. “What do we measure by ‘cost-effectiveness?’ There are so many complications of obesity. For patients with diabetes and obesity we need to look for a little different economic policy.”

Dr. Wysham has reported being an adviser to Abbott and CeQur and receiving research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Hirsch has reported being a consultant for Abbott, Embecta, and Hagar, and receiving research funding from Dexcom and Insulet. Dr. Sattar has reported receiving consulting fees or speaker honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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

Three California nurse practitioners with doctorates (DNP) have sued the state over its law that only physicians can call themselves doctors, saying it violates their first amendment right to use the honorific title without fear of regulatory repercussions.

The case highlights ongoing scope-creep battles as the American Medical Association tries to preserve the physician-led team model and nursing organizations and some lawmakers push for greater autonomy for allied professionals.

In the complaint filed in district court in June, plaintiffs Jacqueline Palmer, DNP, Heather Lewis, DNP, and Rodolfo Jaravata-Hanson, DNP, say they fear the state will sanction them. They note that “Doctor Sarah,” another DNP, was fined nearly $20,000 by the state last November for false advertising and fraud after using the moniker in her online advertising and social media accounts.

The fine was part of a settlement that the DNP, Sarah Erny, reached with the state to resolve allegations that she failed to identify her supervising physician and inform the public that she was not a medical doctor.

Under California’s Medical Practice Act, individuals cannot refer to themselves as “doctor, physician, or any other terms or letters indicating or implying that he or she is a physician and surgeon ... without having ... a certificate as a physician and surgeon.”

Instead, nurse practitioners certified by the California Board of Registered Nursing may use titles like “Certified Nurse Practitioner” and “Advanced Practice Registered Nurse,” corresponding letters such as APRN-CNP, RN, and NP, and phrases like pediatric nurse practitioner to identify specialization.

Individuals who misrepresent themselves are subject to misdemeanor charges and civil penalties.

The nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation represents the plaintiffs. In court records, its attorneys argue that after “years earning their advanced degrees and qualifications ... they should be able to speak truthfully about them in their workplaces, on their business cards, the Internet, and social media, so long as they clarify that they are nurse practitioners.”

State lawmakers’ attempts to clarify the roles of physicians and nurse practitioners have seen mixed results. Florida legislators recently passed a bill to prevent advanced practice nurses from using the honorific title, reserving it only for MDs and DOs. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it last month.

In May, Georgia lawmakers passed the Health Care Practitioners Truth and Transparency Act. It requires advanced practice nurses and physician assistants with doctoral degrees who refer to themselves as doctors in a clinical setting to state they are not medical doctors or physicians.

Still, some health professionals say that the designation should only be used in academic settings or among peers, and that all doctoral degree holders should ditch the moniker at the bedside to ease patient communications.

Named as defendants in the suit are three state officials: California Attorney General Rob Bonta, state Medical Board President Kristina Lawson, and California Board of Registered Nursing Executive Officer Loretta Melby.

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