Clinical Endocrinology News

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) appears to shorten a woman’s lifespan, new data suggest.

In the study, involving nearly 10,000 women with PCOS and matched controls from Finland, women with PCOS died on average a year earlier than their age-matched counterparts, primarily from diseases of the circulatory system, cancer, and diabetes.

PCOS is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-age women, of whom about 50%-70% also have obesity.

“I think we need to acknowledge that this is a health burden and not just a reproductive problem. In many cases we deal with the reproductive problem, and then these women are left alone. … So I think the message is we need to look beyond the reproductive outcomes, which are … really good. We can manage that,” said Terhi T. Piltonen, MD, PhD, during a press briefing held June 15 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“I think the difficult part is [managing] the lifelong health for these women and supporting them to achieve the best health they can get. We need a multidisciplinary effort and to put more resources into the research,” added Dr. Piltonen, professor in the departments of ob.gyn. and reproductive endocrinology at the University of Oulu, Finland.

Indeed, Punith Kempegowda, MD, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) observed: “In our medical schools in the U.K., over 5 years, students get 45 minutes [of education] on PCOS, and they’re expected to learn about it.”

And over the last 20 years, funding for research into the condition has totaled less than a half percent of overall medical funding. “And we’re talking about 10% of all women. …We need to acknowledge it and educate people more. We need more published studies to understand more about it,” he noted.

Asked to comment, Greg Dodell, MD, owner and president of Central Park Endocrinology, New York, said: “PCOS is about a lot more than fertility, and that may not be the goal or on the mind of a woman at the time they start having symptoms of PCOS or get the diagnosis.”

“PCOS is largely a metabolic condition rooted in insulin resistance, and therefore, the potential clinical outcomes, including mortality, are important to recognize.”

Dr. Dodell, who has a special interest in PCOS, advised that, for women with the condition, “focus on reducing insulin resistance with health-promoting behaviors and medications as needed. Data demonstrate that improving fitness, irrespective of a change in weight, can improve metabolic markers.” And, he advised that these women be routinely screened for mental health issues.

He also noted, “PCOS occurs across the size spectrum, but those patients in larger bodies may face weight stigma which has negative health consequences. These patients may avoid going to doctors for routine health screenings, so it is an important issue to continue to address.”

Women with PCOS lose a year of life

The new data come from 9,839 women with PCOS and 70,705 age- and region-matched controls from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care. The group with PCOS had been diagnosed at a mean age of 27 years.

The mean follow-up time was 13.1 years in both groups, during which 1,003 controls and 177 women with PCOS died. The mean age at death was 51.4 years for the PCOS group versus 52.6 years for the control women, a significant difference (P < .001).

Causes of death that were significantly higher among the women with PCOS versus controls after adjustments were cancer (hazard ratio, 1.39), and diseases of the circulatory system (1.68).

In more specific subcategories, after adjustment for education, the women with PCOS had increased mortality from nonischemic diseases, such as hypertensive heart disease, pulmonary embolism, etc. (HR, 2.06), and diabetes (HR, 2.85).

One study limitation was the inability to adjust for body mass index, Dr. Piltonen noted.

Dr. Piltonen, Dr. Kempegowda, and Dr. Dodell have no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

Baseline depression was significantly associated with recovered, incident, and persistent metabolic syndrome, based on data from more than 13,000 individuals.

Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.

“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.

The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).

Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.

Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Baseline depression was significantly associated with recovered, incident, and persistent metabolic syndrome, based on data from more than 13,000 individuals.

Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.

“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.

The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).

Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.

Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Baseline depression was significantly associated with recovered, incident, and persistent metabolic syndrome, based on data from more than 13,000 individuals.

Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.

“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.

The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.

In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).

Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.

Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

Three big bumps on the weight-loss journey

The search for the Holy Grail. The destruction of the One Ring. The never-ending struggle to Lose Weight.

Like most legendary quests, weight loss is a journey, and we need support to help us achieve our goal. Maybe it’s gaining a new workout partner or finding a similarly-goaled Facebook Group. For a lot of people, it’s as simple as your friends and family. A recent study, however, suggests that the people closest to you may be your worst weight-loss enemies, and they might not even know it.

Spencer Davis/Unsplash

Researchers at the University of Surrey reviewed the literature on the positives and negatives of social support when it comes to weight loss and identified three types of negative effects: acts of sabotage, feeding behavior, and collusion.

Let’s start with the softest of intentions and work our way up. Collusion is the least negative. Friends and family may just go with the flow, even if it doesn’t agree with the goals of the person who’s trying to lose weight. It can even happen when health care professionals try to help their patients navigate or avoid obesity, ultimately killing with kindness, so to speak.

Next up, feeding behavior. Maybe you know someone whose love language is cooking. There are also people who share food because they don’t want to waste it or because they’re trying to be polite. They act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they’re putting up roadblocks to someone’s goals. These types of acts are usually one-sided, the researchers found. Remember, it’s okay to say, “No thanks.”

The last method, sabotage, is the most sinister. The saboteur may discourage others from eating healthy, undermine their efforts to be physically active, or take jabs at their confidence or self-esteem. Something as simple as criticizing someone for eating a salad or refusing to go on a walk with them can cause a setback.

“We need to explore this area further to develop interventions which could target family and friends and help them be more supportive in helping those they are close to lose weight,” said lead author Jane Odgen, PhD, of the University of Surrey, Guildford, England.

Like we said before, weight loss is a journey. The right support can only improve the odds of success.
 

Robots vs. mosquitoes

If there’s one thing robots are bad at, it’s giving solid mental health advice to people in crisis. If there’s one thing robots are very, very good at, it’s causing apocalypses. And joyous day for humanity, this time we’re not the ones being apocalypsed.

Yet.

Liu et al., 2023, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, CC-BY 4.0

Taiwan has a big mosquito problem. Not only do the mosquitoes in Taiwan carry dengue – among other dangerous diseases – but they’ve urbanized. Not urbanized in the sense that they’ve acquired a taste for organic coffee and avocado toast (that would be the millennial mosquito, a separate but even more terrifying creature), but more that they’ve adapted to reproduce literally anywhere and everywhere. Taiwanese mosquitoes like to breed in roadside sewer ditches, and this is where our genocidal robot comes in.

To combat the new, dangerous form of street-savvy mosquito, researchers built a robot armed with both insecticide and high-temperature, high-pressure water jets and sent it into the sewers of Kaohsiung City. The robot’s goal was simple: Whenever it came across signs of heavy mosquito breeding – eggs, larvae, pupae, and so on – the robot went to work. Utilizing both its primary weapons, the robot scrubbed numerous breeding sites across the city clean.

The researchers could just sit back and wait to see how effective their robot was. In the immediate aftermath, at various monitoring sites placed alongside the ditches, adult mosquito density fell by two-thirds in areas targeted by the robot. That’s nothing to sniff at, and it does make sense. After all, mosquitoes are quite difficult to kill in their adult stage, why not target them when they’re young and basically immobile?

The researchers saw promise with their mosquito-killing robot, but we’ve noticed a rather large issue. Killing two-thirds of mosquitoes is fine, but the third that’s left will be very angry. Very angry indeed. After all, we’re targeting the mosquito equivalent of children. Let’s hope our mosquito Terminator managed to kill mosquito Sarah Connor, or we’re going to have a big problem on our hands a bit later down the line.
 

This is knot what you were expecting

Physicians who aren’t surgeons probably don’t realize it, but the big thing that’s been getting between the knot-tying specialists and perfect suturing technique all these years is a lack of physics. Don’t believe us? Well, maybe you’ll believe plastic surgeon Samia Guerid, MD, of Lausanne, Switzerland: “The lack of physics-based analysis has been a limitation.” Nuff said.

Alain Herzog / EPFL

That’s not enough for you, is it? Fine, we were warned.

Any surgical knot, Dr. Guerid and associates explained in a written statement, involves the “complex interplay” between six key factors: topology, geometry, elasticity, contact, friction, and polymer plasticity of the suturing filament. The strength of a suture “depends on the tension applied during the tying of the knot, [which] permanently deforms, or stretches the filament, creating a holding force.” Not enough tension and the knot comes undone, while too much snaps the filament.

For the experiment, Dr. Guerid tied a few dozen surgical knots, which were then scanned using x-ray micro–computed tomography to facilitate finite element modeling with a “3D continuum-level constitutive model for elastic-viscoplastic mechanical behavior” – no, we have no idea what that means, either – developed by the research team.

That model, and a great deal of math – so much math – allowed the researchers to define a threshold between loose and tight knots and uncover “relationships between knot strength and pretension, friction, and number of throws,” they said.

But what about the big question? The one about the ideal amount of tension? You may want to sit down. The answer to the ultimate question of the relationship between knot pretension and strength is … Did we mention that the team had its own mathematician? Their predictive model for safe knot-tying is … You’re not going to like this. The best way to teach safe knot-tying to both trainees and robots is … not ready yet.

The secret to targeting the knot tension sweet spot, for now, anyway, is still intuition gained from years of experience. Nobody ever said science was perfect … or easy … or quick.

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

A bill in the Maine legislature would have the medical malpractice statute of limitations clock start running when a patient discovers the negligence, which could be years after treatment took place. And other states could follow suit with similar bills. What danger does this pose for doctors?

As it stands, the time limit for patients to be able to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit varies by state. The bill that was introduced in Maine would enable patients to bring suits many years after treatment took place. For physicians, this extends their period of liability and could potentially increase the number of lawsuits against them.

“The theory behind a statute of limitations is that states want to provide a reasonable, but not indefinite, amount of time for someone to bring a case to court,” says Patrick T. O’Rourke, Esq., adjunct professor at University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder.

Without a statute of limitations, people could bring claims many years after the fact, which makes it harder to obtain and preserve evidence, Mr. O’Rourke says.

In most cases, it isn’t necessary for a patient to know the full extent of their injury or that their physician acted wrongfully or negligently for the statute of limitations to begin running.
 

Time of injury versus time of discovery

Most states’ laws dictate that the statute of limitations begins at a set time “after the cause of action accrues.” That means that the clock starts ticking from the date of the procedure, surgery, or treatment. In most states, that time is 2 or 3 years.

This can bar some patients from taking any action at all because the statute of limitations ran out. Because of these hurdles, the proposed bill in Maine would extend the statute of limitations.

Proponents of the bill say that patients would still have 3 years to file suit; it just changes when the clock starts. But opponents feel it could open the door to a limitless system in which people have an indefinite time to sue.

Many states already have discovery rules that extend the statute of limitations when the harm was not immediately obvious to the patient. The legal expectation is that patients who have significant pain or unexpected health conditions will seek medical treatment to investigate what’s wrong. Patients who don’t address the situation promptly are not protected by the discovery rule.

“It is the injured person’s obligation, once learning of the injury, to take action to protect their rights,” says Mr. O’Rourke.

Some states have also enacted other claims requirements in medical malpractice cases that are prerequisites for bringing lawsuits that have periods attached to them. For instance, in Florida, parties have 10 days to provide relevant medical records during the investigation period for a malpractice suit, and in Maine, before filing any malpractice action, a plaintiff must file a complaint with a prelitigation screening panel.
 

Medical malpractice statutes of limitations by state

Although each state has a basic statute of limitations, many states also include clauses for discovery rules. For example, in Vermont, in addition to the 3-year statute of limitations, a patient can pursue legal recourse “2 years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than 7 years from the date of the incident.”

In some states, such as Virginia, special extensions apply in cases in which fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation prevented discovery of the injury within the statute of limitations. And in most states, the statute of limitations is much longer for cases in which medical malpractice involves a child, usually at least until the child turns 18.
 

Statutes of limitations by state

1 Year: California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee

2 Years: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

2.5 Years: New York

3 Years: Washington D.C., Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

4 Years: Minnesota
 

To protect yourself

Mr. O’Rourke says that if your state enacts a law that extends the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, there aren’t any proactive changes you need to make in terms of your day-to-day practice of medicine.

“Physicians should continue to provide care that is consistent with the standards of care for their specialty and ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the care they rendered,” he says.

Always be candid and up-front about a patient’s condition, Mr. O’Rourke says, especially if malpractice is on the table.

“If a physician misleads a patient about the nature or extent of an injury, that could prevent the statute of limitations from beginning to run,” he says. “Being open and honest about an injury doesn’t mean that a physician must admit any fault. The patient is owed timely, accurate, and candid information about their condition.”
 

Keep good records

If the statute of limitations increases, you’ll need to have access to the medical records for as long as the statute is in place, but this shouldn’t have an effect on your records keeping if you’re up to date with HIPAA compliance, says Mr. O’Rourke.

“I don’t think an extension of the statute should cause physicians to change their practices, particularly with the retention of medical records, which should be maintained consistently with HIPAA requirements irrespective of the limitations period in a particular state,” he adds.
 

Keep an eye on malpractice insurance rates

It’s possible that your malpractice insurance could go up as a result of laws that increase the statute of limitations. But Mr. O’Rourke thinks it likely won’t be a significant amount.

He says it’s “theoretically possible” that an increase in a limitations period could result in an increase in your malpractice insurance, since some claims that would otherwise have been barred because of time could then proceed, but the increase would be nominal.

“I would expect any increase to be fairly marginal because the majority of claims will already be accounted for on an actuarial basis,” he says. “I also don’t think that the extension of a limitations period would increase the award of damages in a particular case. The injuries should be the same under either limitations period, so the compensable loss should not increase.”

Anything that makes it easier for patients to recover should increase the cost of professional liability insurance, and vice versa, says Charles Silver, McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at University of Texas at Austin School of Law and coauthor of “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works – Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” But the long-term trend across the country is toward declining rates of liability and declining payouts on claims.

“The likelihood of being sued successfully by a former patient is low, as is the risk of having to pay out of pocket to settle a claim,” he says. In 2022, the number of adverse reports nationally was 38,938, and out of those, 10,807 resulted in a payout.

In his research on medical malpractice in Texas, Mr. Silver says physicians who carried $1 million in coverage essentially never faced any personal liability on medical malpractice claims. “[This means] that they never had to write a check to a victim,” he says. “Insurers provided all the money. I suspect that the same is true nationwide.”
 

Key takeaways

Ultimately, to protect yourself and your practice, you can do the following:

• Know the statute of limitations and discovery rules for your state.
• Review your coverage with your insurer to better understand your liability.
• Keep accurate records for as long as your statute requires.
• Notify your insurer or risk management department as soon as possible in the event of an adverse outcome with a patient, Mr. O’Rourke advises.

“The most important thing a physician can do to avoid being sued, even when negligent, is to treat patients with kindness and respect,” says Mr. Silver. “Patients don’t expect doctors to be perfect, and they rarely sue doctors they like.”

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

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Insurance companies are starting to send warning letters to doctors and health care providers suspected of off-label prescribing for the drug Ozempic. 

The warning letters, first reported by The Washington Post, include threats such as the possibility of reporting “suspected inappropriate or fraudulent activity ... to the state licensure board, federal and/or state law enforcement.”

It’s the latest chapter in the story of the popular, highly effective, and very expensive drug intended for diabetes that results in quick weight loss. Off-label prescribing means a medicine has been prescribed for a reason other than the uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The practice is common and legal (the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality says one in five prescriptions in the U.S. are off label). 

But insurance companies are pushing back because many do not cover weight loss medications, while they do cover diabetes treatments. The insurance company letters suggest that prescribers are failing to document in a person’s medical record that the person actually has diabetes. 

Ozempic, which is FDA approved for treatment of diabetes, is similar to the drug Wegovy, which is approved to be used for weight loss. Ozempic typically costs more than $900 per month. Both Wegovy and Ozempic contain semaglutide, which mimics a hormone that helps the brain regulate appetite and food intake. Clinical studies show that after taking semaglutide for more than 5 years, people lose on average 17% of their body weight. But once they stop taking it, most people regain much of the weight. 

Demand for both Ozempic and Wegovy has been surging, leading to shortages and tactics to acquire the drugs outside of the United States, as well as warnings from public health officials about the dangers of knockoff versions of the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 42% of people in the United States are obese.

“Obesity is a complex disease involving an excessive amount of body fat,” the Mayo Clinic explained. “Obesity isn’t just a cosmetic concern. It’s a medical problem that increases the risk of other diseases and health problems, such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.”

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

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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

Johnna Mendenall had never been “the skinny friend,” she said, but the demands of motherhood – along with a sedentary desk job – made weight management even more difficult. Worried that family type 2 diabetes would catch up with her, she decided to start Wegovy shots for weight loss.

She was nervous about potential side effects. It took 5 days of staring at the Wegovy pen before she worked up the nerve for her first .25-milligram shot. And sure enough, the side effects came on strong.

“The nausea kicked in,” she said. “When I increased my dose to 1 milligram, I spent the entire night from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. vomiting. I almost quit that day.”

Ms. Mendenall is among a growing number of people sharing personal stories online about the weight loss medication Wegovy – and similar drugs – delving into their sometimes unpleasant, and potentially gut-wrenching, side effects. 

While gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms seem to be the most common, a laundry list of others has been discussed in the news, on TikTok, and across online forums. Those include “Ozempic face,” or the gaunt look some get after taking the medication, along with hair loss, anxiety, depression, and debilitating fatigue. 

Ms. Mendenall’s primary side effects have been vomiting, fatigue, and severe constipation, but she has also seen some positive changes: The “food noise,” or the urge to eat when she isn’t hungry, is gone. Since her first dose 12 weeks ago, she has gone from 236 pounds to 215. 
 

Warning label

Wegovy’s active ingredient, semaglutide, mimics the role of a natural hormone called glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), which helps you feel well fed. Semaglutide is used at a lower dose under the brand name Ozempic, which is approved for type 2 diabetes and used off-label for weight loss.  

Both Ozempic and Wegovy come with a warning label for potential side effects, the most common ones being nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting.

With the surging popularity of semaglutide, more people are getting prescriptions through telemedicine companies, forgoing more in-depth consultations, leading to more side effects, said Caroline Apovian, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Specialists say starting with low doses and gradually increasing over time helps avoid side effects, but insurance companies often require a faster timeline to continue covering the medication, Dr. Apovian said. 

“Insurance companies are practicing medicine for us by demanding the patient go up in dosage [too quickly],” she explained. 

Ms. Mendenall’s insurance has paid for her Wegovy shots, but without that coverage, she said it would cost her $1,200 per month. 

There are similar medications on the market, such as liraglutide, sold under the name Saxenda. But it is a daily, rather than a weekly, shot and also comes with side effects and has been shown to be less effective. In one clinical trial, the people being studied saw their average body weight over 68 weeks drop by 15.8% with semaglutide, and by 6.4% with liraglutide.

Tirzepatide, branded Mounjaro – a type 2 diabetes drug made by Eli Lilly that may soon gain Food and Drug Administration approval for weight loss – could have fewer side effects. In clinical trials, 44% of those taking semaglutide had nausea and 31% reported diarrhea, compared with 33% and 23% of those taking tirzepatide, although no trial has directly compared the two agents. 
 

Loss of bowel control 

For now, Wegovy and Saxenda are the only GLP-1 agonist shots authorized for weight loss, and their maker, Danish drug company Novo Nordisk, is facing its second shortage of Wegovy amid growing demand. 

Personal stories online about semaglutide range from overwhelmingly positive – just what some need to win a lifelong battle with obesity – to harsh scenarios with potentially long-term health consequences, and everything in between. 

One private community on Reddit is dedicated to a particularly unpleasant side effect: loss of bowel control while sleeping. Others have reported uncontrollable vomiting.

Kimberly Carew of Clearwater, Fla., started on .5 milligrams of Ozempic last year after her rheumatologist and endocrinologist suggested it to treat her type 2 diabetes. She was told it came with the bonus of weight loss, which she was hoping would help with her joint and back pain. 

But after she increased the dose to 1 milligram, her GI symptoms, which started out mild, became unbearable. She couldn’t keep food down, and when she vomited, the food would often come up whole, she said. 

“One night I ate ramen before bed. And the next morning, it came out just as it went down,” said Ms. Carew, 42, a registered mental health counseling intern. “I was getting severe heartburn and could not take a couple bites of food without getting nauseous.”

She also had “sulfur burps,” a side effect discussed by some Ozempic users, causing her to taste rotten egg sometimes.

She was diagnosed with gastroparesis. Some types of gastroparesis can be resolved by discontinuing GLP-1 medications, as referenced in two case reports in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. 
 

Gut hormone

GI symptoms are most common with semaglutide because the hormone it imitates, GLP-1, is secreted by cells in the stomach, small intestines, and pancreas, said Anne Peters, MD, director of the USC Clinical Diabetes Programs.

“This is the deal: The side effects are real because it’s a gut hormone. It’s increasing the level of something your body already has,” she said. 

But, like Dr. Apovian, Dr. Peters said those side effects can likely be avoided if shots are started at the lowest doses and gradually adjusted up. 

While the average starting dose is .25 milligrams, Dr. Peters said she often starts her patients on about an eighth of that – just “a whiff of a dose.” 

“It’ll take them months to get up to the starting dose, but what’s the rush?” 

Dr. Peters said she also avoids giving diabetes patients the maximum dose, which is 2 milligrams per week for Ozempic (and 2.4 milligrams for Wegovy for weight loss). 

When asked about the drugs’ side effects, Novo Nordisk responded that “GLP-1 receptor agonists are a well-established class of medicines, which have demonstrated long-term safety in clinical trials. The most common adverse reactions, as with all GLP-1 [agonists], are gastrointestinal related.”
 

Is it the drug or the weight loss?

Still, non-gastrointestinal side effects such as hair loss, mood changes, and sunken facial features are reported among semaglutide users across the Internet. While these cases are often anecdotal, they can be very heartfelt.

Celina Horvath Myers, also known as CelinaSpookyBoo, a Canadian YouTuber who took Ozempic for type 2 diabetes, said she began having intense panic attacks and depression after starting the medication. 

“Who I have been these last couple weeks, has probably been the scariest time of my life,” she said on her YouTube channel. 

While severe depression and anxiety are not established side effects of the medication, some people get anhedonia, said W. Scott Butsch, MD, MSc, director of obesity medicine in the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. But that could be a natural consequence of lower appetite, he said, given that food gives most people pleasure in the moment.

Many other reported changes come from the weight loss itself, not the medication, said Dr. Butsch.

“These are drugs that change the body’s weight regulatory system,” he said. “When someone loses weight, you get the shrinking of the fat cells, as well as the atrophy of the muscles. This rapid weight loss may give the appearance of one’s face changing.”

For some people, like Ms. Mendenall, the side effects are worth it. For others, like Ms. Carew, they’re intolerable. 

Ms. Carew said she stopped the medication after about 7 months, and gradually worked up to eating solid foods again. 

“It’s the American way, we’ve all got to be thin and beautiful,” she said. “But I feel like it’s very unsafe because we just don’t know how seriously our bodies will react to these things in the long term. People see it as a quick fix, but it comes with risks.”

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