Clinical Endocrinology News

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.

BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.

But growing appreciation of the limitations of BMI is causing many clinicians to consider alternative measures of obesity that can better assess both the amount of adiposity as well as its body location, an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.

Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.

Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.

“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.

“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
 

BMI Is ‘imperfect’

The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.

“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.

BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.

“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.

Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.

BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.

These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
 

The case for WHtR

Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.

The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”

Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.

In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”

NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m². This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”

However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m² are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”

This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.

Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.

The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
 

WHtR vs. BMI

Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.

WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.

The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.

The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.

This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.

The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
 

Measuring waist circumference is tricky

Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.

Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”

“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.

Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
 

The imaging option

“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”

But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.

“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.

“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.

“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
 

BMI’s limits mean adding on

Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.

“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.

The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”

“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.

“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”

Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Seasonal variation in one of the hormones used to monitor thyroid function could in turn lead to false diagnoses of subclinical hypothyroidism and unnecessary prescriptions of levothyroxine, according to Yale clinical chemist Joe M. El-Khoury, PhD.

A Japanese study of more than 7,000 healthy individuals showed that thyrotropin-stimulating hormone (TSH) varies widely throughout the seasons, he said, peaking in the northern hemisphere’s winter months (January to February) with its low in the summer months (June to August). That paper was published last year in the Journal of the Endocrine Society.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

But free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the Japanese population remained relatively stable, he wrote in a letter recently published in Clinical Chemistry.

“If you end up with a mildly elevated TSH result and a normal FT4, try getting retested 2-3 months later to make sure this is not a seasonal artifact or transient increase before prescribing/taking levothyroxine unnecessarily,” advised Dr. El-Khoury, director of Yale University’s Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, New Haven, Conn.

“Because the [population-based, laboratory] reference ranges don’t account for seasonal variation, we’re flagging a significant number of people as high TSH when they’re normal, and physicians are prescribing levothyroxine inappropriately to healthy people who don’t need it,” he told this news organization, adding that overtreatment can be harmful, particularly for elderly people.

This seasonal variation in TSH could account for between a third to a half of the 90% of all levothyroxine prescriptions that were found to be unnecessary, according to a U.S. study in 2021, Dr. El-Khoury added.

In a comment, Trisha Cubb, MD, said that Dr. El-Khoury’s letter “raises a good point, that we really need to look at our reference ranges, especially when more and more studies are showing that so many thyroid hormone prescriptions may not be necessary.”

Dr. Cubb, thyroid section director and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College/Houston Methodist Academic Institute, Texas, also agrees with Dr. El-Khoury’s suggestion to repeat lab results in some instances.

“I think repeating results, especially in our patients with subclinical disease, is important,” she noted.

And she pointed out that seasonal variation isn’t the only relevant variable. “We also know that multiple clinical factors like pregnancy status, coexisting comorbidities, or age can all influence what we as clinicians consider an acceptable TSH range in an individual patient.” And other medications, such as steroids, or supplements like biotin, “can all affect thyroid lab values,” she noted.

“Ensuring that minor abnormalities aren’t transient is important prior to initiating medical therapy. With any medical therapy there are possible side effects, along with time, cost, [and] monitoring, all of which can be associated with thyroid hormone replacement.”
 

TSH reference ranges should be adapted for subpopulations

Dr. El-Khoury explained that to get an idea of how big the seasonal differences in TSH observed in the Japanese study were, “the upper end of the population they tracked goes from 5.2 [mIU/L] in January to 3.4 [mIU/L] in August. So you have almost a 2-unit change in concentration that can happen in the reference population. But laboratory reference ranges, or ‘normal ranges,’ are usually fixed and don’t change by season.”

The higher the TSH, the more likely a person is to have hypothyroidism. Major recent studies have found no benefit of levothyroxine treatment with TSH levels below 7.0-10.0 mIU/L, he said.

“So, I suggest that the limit should be 7.0 [mIU/L] to be safe, but it could be as high as 10 [mIU/L]. In any case, let’s shift the mindset to clinical outcome–based treatment cutoffs,” he said, noting that this approach is currently used for decisions on cholesterol-lowering therapy or vitamin D supplementation, for example.

Regarding this suggestion of using a TSH cutoff of 7 mIU/L to diagnose subclinical hypothyroidism, Dr. Cubb said: “It really depends on the specific population. In an elderly patient, a higher TSH may be of less clinical concern when compared to a female who is actively trying to get pregnant.

“Overall, I think we do need to better understand what appropriate TSH ranges are in specific subpopulations, and then with time, make this more understandable and available for general medicine as well as subspecialty providers to be able to utilize,” she noted.

Regarding the particular Japanese findings cited by Dr. El-Khoury, Dr. Cubb observed that this was a very specific study population, “so we would need more data showing that this is more generalizable.”

And she noted that there’s also diurnal variation in TSH. “In the [Japanese] paper, patients had their thyroid labs drawn between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in a fasting state. Oftentimes in the U.S., thyroid labs are not drawn at specific times or [during] fasting. I think this is one of many factors that should be considered.”
 

Acknowledging seasonal variation would be a start

But overall, Dr. Cubb said that both the Japanese study and Dr. El-Khoury’s letter highlight “how season, in and of itself, which is not something we usually think about, can affect thyroid lab results. I believe as more data come out, more generalizable data, that’s how evidence-based guidelines are generated over time.”

According to Dr. El-Khoury, fixing the laboratory reference range issues would likely require a joint effort of professional medical societies, reference laboratories, and assay manufacturers. But with seasonal variation, that might be a difficult task.

“The problem is, in laboratory medicine, we don’t have rules for an analyte that changes by season to do anything different. My goal is to get people to at least acknowledge this is a problem and do something,” he concluded.

Dr. El-Khoury and Dr. Cubb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic Minimed’s 780G automated insulin delivery system with the Guardian 4 sensor.

The latest so-called artificial pancreas system is approved for people aged 7 years and older who have type 1 diabetes. Medtronic will begin taking preorders for the 780G on May 15, 2023. Users of the current MiniMed 770G will be eligible for no-cost remote software upgrades.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The 780G is currently available in 105 countries. It has been available in Europe since 2020 and in the United Kingdom since 2021. It is the first automated insulin delivery system to automatically administer bolus correction insulin doses every 5 minutes to correct meal-related hyperglycemia.

This so-called meal detection technology doesn’t replace manual premeal boluses but does provide extra insulin if the premeal bolus is skipped or is insufficient.

As with other automated systems, the 780G automatically adjusts basal insulin doses up or down based on glucose levels and trends and shuts off insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia. The insulin pump’s infusion set can be worn for 7 days, rather than 3 days as with the older system, and the glucose target level can be set as low as 100 mg/dL.

And in contrast to the older MiniMed 670G system, which tended to frequently boot users out of automated mode, with the 780G, users spent an average of 95% of the time in the automated “SmartGuard” mode.

In the pivotal U.S. trial, overall, patients who used the 780G spent 75% of the time in ideal glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) and 1.8% of the time below that range. Overnight, the figures were 82% and 1.5%, respectively. With the glucose target set at 100 mg/dL and active insulin time set to 2 hours, patients spent 78.8% of time in range without increased hyperglycemia.

In the ADAPT study, with the 780G, there was a 26% increase in time in ideal glucose range and a 1.4% reduction in A1c compared with results for patients who received multiple daily insulin injections with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring, without an increase in hypoglycemia. Overnight, time in range increased 30.2%. The results were sustained at 1 year.

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

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Regular meditation reduced depression by roughly 44% in adults with coronary artery disease who were involved in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program.

An increasing body of research supports the impact of psychological risk factors including stress, personality type, anger, and hostility on conditions such as depression and anxiety, but also social isolation and low socioeconomic status, Ana Luisa Vitorino Monteiro, MD, of the University of Lisbon said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. In addition, “stress, anxiety, and depression deteriorate the cardiovascular (CV) system through psycho-neuro-immunoendocrinology system and behavioral pathways.”

Meditation as a tool for stress management has been gaining popularity, but its use as part of a CV rehabilitation program as a complementary therapy has not been well studied, she added.

Dr. Monteiro and colleagues recruited 80 adults with CAD who were undergoing CV rehabilitation to join a meditation program. Of these, 48 accepted (60%) and 40% declined. Those who accepted were part of an exercise-based CV rehabilitation program that met three times a week for at least 6 months. The mean age of the participants was 65 years, and 80% were male.

Participants were randomized to an intervention group with a weekly 90-minute session that included breathing and meditation for 1 month in addition to usual care, or to usual care in the rehabilitation program. Over the next 3 months, the intervention patients were encouraged to practice daily meditation for 20 minutes alone or using video support material, with a weekly follow-up phone call. Assessments of stress, anxiety, and depression took place at baseline and after 4 months using the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and HeartQoL questionnaire.

At 4 months, individuals in the meditation group had reduced depression levels significantly, by 44%, compared with controls (P < .001). Anxiety and stress decreased significantly, by 30% (P = .04) and 31% (P = .05), respectively. After 4 months, individuals in the control group were offered the opportunity to follow the meditation protocol.

In addition, “the emotional dimension of quality of life increased by 60% in the intervention group,” Dr. Monteiro noted. However, physical QoL did not change between groups.

The study was limited by the small sample size, and more research is needed in larger and more diverse populations, Dr. Monteiro said. However, the results support the value of meditation as an adjunct component of care for CAD patients in a long-term rehabilitation program.
 

Motivation makes a difference

The current study is important as an exploration of “a straightforward, simple, low-risk approach that could be an adjunct to benefit patients with serious cardiovascular disease,” Brian Olshansky, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview.

“We have moved into a time of polypharmacy and multiple interventions for patients with underlying cardiovascular disease which, in many cases, have proven benefit but also potential adverse effects,” he said. “Engaging patients to participate in their health care, when there is serious underlying cardiovascular disease, has potential beneficial impact in many ways. Meditation is a low-risk, low-cost, potentially beneficial adjunct to standard medical therapy that may enhance psychological outcomes as shown here in this small study.”

However, “patients often rely on high-cost, potentially high-risk therapeutic interventions, expecting complete control of their problems without their own collaborative intervention,” he noted.

Dr. Olshansky said he was not surprised by any of the findings, and would have been surprised if meditation had failed to show any benefit for the study population.

“I am very pleased to see these results and would encourage meditation practice to be part of cardiovascular rehabilitation for motivated individuals,” he said. “What did surprise me was the adherence to the meditation protocol for those who participated. This represents a highly motivated group and it may be difficult to expect the same results in less motivated individuals.”

The current study has several strengths, including the use of controls and high rates of adherence to the protocol, said Dr. Olshansky. Other strengths include the standardized approach and the reasonable quality of the outcome measures, which showed a substantial benefit.

However, “this is a small study of motivated individuals of whom 80% were male,” and generalizability to other populations is unclear, Dr. Olshansky said. In addition, the racial mix was not described, and the severity of the underlying coronary artery disease and the therapies provided to these individuals is not detailed. A sicker population may not fare as well.”

The reasons for the benefits of meditation remain uncertain, Dr. Olshansky said. “It could be, specifically, that the meditation itself has physiological effects that ultimately translate into psychosocial benefit. However, those who enrolled and were interested may have derived a placebo effect. In any case, benefit was achieved, but the crossover benefit to the control group is unclear.

“In other words, the statistical approach to benefit is uncertain as to when it was measured, but presumably before the control group was allowed to engage in a meditation practice,” and the follow-up was short term, said Dr. Olshansky.
 

Data support patient engagement

The message to clinicians and patients: “Patients should be engaged in their own health care when it comes to rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Olshansky. “Motivated individuals who are educated about a meditative practice performed in a standardized way will have improvement most likely in their quality of life, and when it comes to measurements of depression, stress and anxiety.”

Although the mechanisms behind the benefits remain unclear, “having a standardized credible prescription for which patients can become intimately engaged is beneficial,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. Neither Dr. Monteiro nor Dr. Olshansky had any financial conflicts to disclose.


 

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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

A new federal research project aims to answer lingering questions about long COVID using mobile monitoring devices to help track the condition.

The federally funded RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people with long COVID to collect data in real time.

Terry Rudd/MDedge News

The hope is that researchers will be able to provide doctors and patients with a wealth of information to address gaps in knowledge about long COVID.

The project takes advantage of the approach other researchers have used to track patients’ health data on heart rate, exercise, and more using mobile monitoring devices such as Fitbits, smartwatches, and other remote sensors. 

Researchers believe the initiative could be particularly useful for people with long COVID – whose symptoms come and go. They can use a wristband sensor to passively collect data in real time.

For a condition defined by its symptoms, that kind of data promises to be useful, experts said. 

But not everyone has room in their budget for a smartwatch or a fitness tracker. Until recently, most clinical trials were BYOD: Bring your own device. At a time when researchers are trying to make sure that clinical trials reflect the diversity of the population, that leaves a lot of people out.

So, researchers are starting to supply subjects with their own monitors. The RECOVER Initiative expects to give out 10,000 sensors to people who are eligible based on race/ethnicity, income, and other demographic factors (rural residents for example). After 2 months, all people in the RECOVER study over the age of 13 will be eligible for the sensors.

The federal program builds on earlier research at places like The Scripps Institute, a center of research into remote monitoring. The institute supplied 7,000 monitors to people in an arm of the All of Us study, a 5-year-old multisite cohort that aims to collect medical information from 1 million people. 

The devices went to people who have been historically underrepresented in biomedical research, said Scripps researchers, who plan to give out more this year. 

In March of 2023, Scripps researchers published a study on the tracking data that found a significant post-COVID-19 drop in physical activity. But the data are incomplete because many people can’t always afford these devices. Most of the people in the study were “White, young, and active,” they wrote.

Researchers at an All of Us site at Vanderbilt University, which also used a BYOD approach, realized that they produced biased results. They reported their findings at the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing in January.

“[The] majority of participants who provided Fitbit data reported being White and employed for wages,” they said. “However, these data represent participants who had their own Fitbit devices and consented to share EHR [electronic health record] data.”

Their solution: The program has begun providing Fitbit devices to all study participants who do not own one or cannot afford one. 

Now, the web page for the All of Us study asks visitors to “Learn about the All of Us WEAR study. You could get a Fitbit at no cost! … As a part of the WEAR Study, you could receive a new Fitbit to wear at no cost to you. All of Us will be able to get the data the Fitbit collects. This data may help us understand how behavior impacts health.”

Jennifer Radin, PhD, an epidemiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute, is heading up the DETECT study, which is a remote monitoring research project that has enrolled over 40,000 people who have their own sensors – be it a smartwatch or Fitbit. She was looking at remote monitoring for disease before COVID emerged.

Dr. Radin said she began researching remote sensing after working in public health and dealing with outdated data collection systems. 

“They typically rely on case reports that are recorded by pen and paper and faxed or mailed in,” she said. “Then, they have to be entered into a database. “

In addition to offering objective data on a subject’s physical response to the infection, she said, the data collection can be long-term and continuous. 

DETECT collects data on resting heart rate, which is unique to every person, and activity levels. Both measures are meaningful for those with long COVID. Her research found differences in sleep, heart rate, and activity between those with COVID and those without.

Joseph Kvedar, MD, is a Harvard Medical School researcher and the editor of  NPJ Digital Medicine. He’s been studying digital health systems and called clinical research a “beachhead” for the use of data from monitors. But he also said problems remain that need to be worked out. The quality of the devices and their Bluetooth connections are better. But different devices measure different things, and a counted step can vary from person to person, he said. And the problems of the early days of electronic health records have not been fully resolved.

“We haven’t gotten to this universal language to connect all these things and make them relevant,” he said. 

The All of Us researchers are working with the RECOVER project to address some of those issues. Usually not focused on a single condition, the All of Us researchers are testing a machine-learning approach for identifying long COVID. 
 

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

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

Early menopause and delayed initiation of hormone therapy (HT) have been linked to an increase in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in women, a new imaging study shows.

Investigators found elevated levels of tau protein in the brains of women who initiated HT more than 5 years after menopause onset, while those who started the therapy earlier had normal levels.

Tau levels were also higher in women who started menopause before age 45, either naturally or following surgery, but only in those who already had high levels of beta-amyloid.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Hotly debated

Previous research has suggested the timing of menopause and HT initiation may be associated with AD. However, the current research is the first to suggest tau deposition may explain that link.

“There have been a lot of conflicting findings around whether HT induces risk for Alzheimer’s disease dementia or not, and – at least in our hands – our observational evidence suggests that any risk is fairly limited to those rarer cases when women might delay their initiation of HT considerably,” senior investigator Rachel Buckley, PhD, assistant investigator in neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The link between HT, dementia, and cognitive decline has been hotly debated since the initial release of findings from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study, reported 20 years ago.

Since then, dozens of studies have yielded conflicting evidence about HT and AD risk, with some showing a protective effect and others showing the treatment may increase AD risk.

For this study, researchers analyzed data from 292 cognitively unimpaired participants (66.1% female) in the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. About half of the women had received HT.

Women had higher levels of tau measured on PET imaging than age-matched males, even after adjustment for APOE status and other potential confounders.

Higher tau levels were found in those with an earlier age at menopause (P < .001) and HT use (P = .008) compared with male sex; later menopause onset; or HT nonuse – but only in patients who also had a higher beta-amyloid burden.

Late initiation of HT (> 5 years following age at menopause) was associated with higher tau compared with early initiation (P = .001), regardless of amyloid levels.
 

Surprising finding

Although researchers expected to find that surgical history (specifically oophorectomy) might have a greater impact on risk, that wasn’t the case.

“Given that bilateral oophorectomy involves the removal of both ovaries, and the immediate ceasing of estrogen production, I had expected this to be the primary driver of higher tau levels,” Dr. Buckley said. “But early age at menopause – regardless of whether the genesis was natural or surgical – seemed to have similar impacts.”

These findings are the latest from Dr. Buckley’s group that indicate that women tend to have higher levels of tau than men, regardless of preexisting amyloid burden in the brain.

“We see this in healthy older women, women with dementia, and even in postmortem cases,” Dr. Buckley said. “It really remains to be seen whether women tend to accumulate tau faster in the brain than men, or whether this is simply a one-shot phenomenon that we see in observational studies at the baseline.”

“One could really flip this finding on its head and suggest that women are truly resilient to the disease,” she continued. “That is, they can hold much more tau in their brain and remain well enough to be studied, unlike men.”

Among the study’s limitations is that the data were collected at a single time point and did not include information on subsequent Alzheimer’s diagnosis or cognitive decline.

“It is important to remember that the participants in this study were not as representative of the general population in the United States, so we cannot extrapolate our findings to women from a range of socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds or education levels,” she said.

The study’s observational design left researchers unable to demonstrate causation. What’s more, the findings don’t support the assertion that hormone therapy may protect against AD, Dr. Buckley added.

“I would more confidently say that evidence from our work, and that of many others, seems to suggest that HT initiated around the time of menopause may be benign – not providing benefit or risk, at least in the context of Alzheimer’s disease risk,” she said.

Another important takeaway from the study, Dr. Buckley said, is that not all women are at high risk for AD.

“Often the headlines might make you think that most women are destined to progress to dementia, but this simply is not the case,” Dr. Buckley said. “We are now starting to really drill down on what might elevate risk for AD in women and use this information to better inform clinical trials and doctors on how best to think about treating these higher-risk groups.”
 

New mechanism?

Commenting on the findings, Pauline Maki, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychology and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, called the study “interesting.”

“It identifies a new mechanism in humans that could underlie a possible link between sex hormones and dementia,” Dr. Maki said.

However, Dr. Maki noted that the study wasn’t randomized and information about menopause onset was self-reported.

“We must remember that many of the hypotheses about hormone therapy and brain health that came from observational studies were not validated in randomized trials, including the hypothesis that hormone therapy prevents dementia,” she said.

The findings don’t resolve the debate over hormone therapy and AD risk and point to the need for randomized, prospective studies on the topic, Dr. Maki added. Still, she said, they underscore the gender disparity in AD risk.

“It’s a good reminder to clinicians that women have a higher lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease and should be advised on factors that might lower their risk,” she said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Buckley reports no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Maki serves on the advisory boards for Astellas, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, consults for Pfizer and Mithra, and has equity in Estrigenix, Midi-Health, and Alloy.
 

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

COVID can more than triple the chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within a year of being infected, according to a new Canadian study.

Men who had even a mild case of COVID were significantly more likely than were noninfected men to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Women didn’t have an increased risk unless they were severely ill.

Both men and women who had severe cases were at the highest risk. People who were hospitalized for COVID treatment had more than a doubled risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and those who were admitted to intensive care units had more than a tripled risk.

“This is definitely a concern in terms of long-term outcomes,” researcher and University of British Columbia professor Naveed Z. Janjua, PhD, told The New York Times. “With a respiratory infection, you usually think, ‘Seven or eight days and I’m done with it, that’s it.’ [But] here we’re seeing lingering effects that are lifelong.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open. Researchers analyzed health data from 2020 and 2021 for 629,935 people, 20% of whom were diagnosed with COVID during that time. Most people in the study had not been vaccinated because vaccines were not widely available then. The health information came from a registry maintained by public health officials in British Columbia. The follow-up period was 257 days.

The authors cautioned that their findings could not say that COVID causes type 2 diabetes; rather, in a commentary published along with the study, Pamela B. Davis, MD, PhD, said the link makes sense because COVID is known to impact the pancreas.

“Such a stress may move a patient from a prediabetic state into diabetes,” wrote Dr. Davis, former dean of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, where she is now a professor.

The researchers estimated that the increased pattern of diagnoses of diabetes following COVID infection could increase the rate of the disease occurring in the general population by 3%-5% overall.
 

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

COVID can more than triple the chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within a year of being infected, according to a new Canadian study.

Men who had even a mild case of COVID were significantly more likely than were noninfected men to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Women didn’t have an increased risk unless they were severely ill.

Both men and women who had severe cases were at the highest risk. People who were hospitalized for COVID treatment had more than a doubled risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and those who were admitted to intensive care units had more than a tripled risk.

“This is definitely a concern in terms of long-term outcomes,” researcher and University of British Columbia professor Naveed Z. Janjua, PhD, told The New York Times. “With a respiratory infection, you usually think, ‘Seven or eight days and I’m done with it, that’s it.’ [But] here we’re seeing lingering effects that are lifelong.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open. Researchers analyzed health data from 2020 and 2021 for 629,935 people, 20% of whom were diagnosed with COVID during that time. Most people in the study had not been vaccinated because vaccines were not widely available then. The health information came from a registry maintained by public health officials in British Columbia. The follow-up period was 257 days.

The authors cautioned that their findings could not say that COVID causes type 2 diabetes; rather, in a commentary published along with the study, Pamela B. Davis, MD, PhD, said the link makes sense because COVID is known to impact the pancreas.

“Such a stress may move a patient from a prediabetic state into diabetes,” wrote Dr. Davis, former dean of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, where she is now a professor.

The researchers estimated that the increased pattern of diagnoses of diabetes following COVID infection could increase the rate of the disease occurring in the general population by 3%-5% overall.
 

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

COVID can more than triple the chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes within a year of being infected, according to a new Canadian study.

Men who had even a mild case of COVID were significantly more likely than were noninfected men to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Women didn’t have an increased risk unless they were severely ill.

Both men and women who had severe cases were at the highest risk. People who were hospitalized for COVID treatment had more than a doubled risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and those who were admitted to intensive care units had more than a tripled risk.

“This is definitely a concern in terms of long-term outcomes,” researcher and University of British Columbia professor Naveed Z. Janjua, PhD, told The New York Times. “With a respiratory infection, you usually think, ‘Seven or eight days and I’m done with it, that’s it.’ [But] here we’re seeing lingering effects that are lifelong.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open. Researchers analyzed health data from 2020 and 2021 for 629,935 people, 20% of whom were diagnosed with COVID during that time. Most people in the study had not been vaccinated because vaccines were not widely available then. The health information came from a registry maintained by public health officials in British Columbia. The follow-up period was 257 days.

The authors cautioned that their findings could not say that COVID causes type 2 diabetes; rather, in a commentary published along with the study, Pamela B. Davis, MD, PhD, said the link makes sense because COVID is known to impact the pancreas.

“Such a stress may move a patient from a prediabetic state into diabetes,” wrote Dr. Davis, former dean of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, where she is now a professor.

The researchers estimated that the increased pattern of diagnoses of diabetes following COVID infection could increase the rate of the disease occurring in the general population by 3%-5% overall.
 

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

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

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

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

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

Poor diets account for most newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, a new analysis has found.

More specifically, the modeling study showed that roughly 14 million cases of type 2 diabetes – or 70% of total type 2 diabetes diagnoses in 2018 – were linked with a poor diet, found Meghan O’Hearn, a doctoral student at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, and colleagues. The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

The results also indicate that the greatest burdens of type 2 diabetes were accounted for by excess wheat intake and refined rice (24.6%), excess processed meat consumption (20.3%), and inadequate whole-grain consumption (26.1%). Factors such as drinking too much fruit juice and not eating enough nonstarchy vegetables, nuts, or seeds, had less of an impact on new cases of the disease, the researchers determined.

“These findings can help inform nutritional priorities for clinicians, policymakers, and private sector actors as they encourage healthier dietary choices that address this global epidemic,” Ms. O’Hearn said in a press release.

Prior research has suggested that poor diet contributes to about 40% of type 2 diabetes cases worldwide, the researchers note.

The team attributes their finding of a 70% contribution to the new information in their analysis, such as the first-ever inclusion of refined grains, which was one of the top contributors to diabetes burden, and updated data on dietary habits based on national individual-level dietary surveys rather than agricultural estimates. 

“Our study suggests poor carbohydrate quality is a leading driver of diet-attributable type 2 diabetes globally and with important variation by nation and over time,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPh, MPH, who is the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

“These new findings reveal critical areas for national and global focus to improve nutrition and reduce devastating burdens of diabetes,” he noted.

“Left unchecked and with incidence only projected to rise, type 2 diabetes will continue to impact population health, economic productivity, [and] health care system capacity, [as well as] drive health inequities worldwide,” Ms. O’Hearn said.
 

It’s about reducing harmful dietary components

Ms. O’Hearn and colleagues set out to fill information gaps in knowledge about how the global burden of diet-associated type 2 diabetes is impacted by disparities and other factors known to influence risk, including dietary components.

They used information from the Global Dietary Database to study dietary intake in 184 nations from 1990 to 2018. They also studied demographics from multiple sources, estimates of type 2 diabetes incidence around the world, and data on food choices, including the effect of 11 dietary factors, from prior research.

They found that there were 8.6 million more cases of type 2 diabetes in 2018 than in 1990 because of poor diet. 

Regionally, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the greatest number of type 2 diabetes cases linked to diet, particularly Poland and Russia, where diets tend to be rich in red meat, processed meat, and potatoes. Incidence was also high in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia and Mexico, which was attributed to high consumption of sugary drinks and processed meat and low intake of whole grains.

Regions where diet had less of an impact on type 2 diabetes cases included South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, although the largest increases in type 2 diabetes due to poor diet between 1990 and 2018 were observed in sub-Saharan Africa.

Diet-attributable type 2 diabetes was generally larger among urban versus rural residents and higher versus lower educated individuals, except in high-income countries, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, where burdens were larger in rural residents and in lower educated individuals.

Notably, women had lower proportions of diet-related type 2 diabetes, compared with men, and these proportions were inversely related to age.

Excess intake of harmful dietary factors contributed a greater percentage of the burden of type 2 diabetes globally (60.8%) than did insufficient intake of protective dietary factors (39.2%).

“Future research should address whether more complex diet–type 2 diabetes dose–response relationships exist,” the authors conclude.

Ms. O’Hearn has reported receiving research funding from the Gates Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health and Vail Innovative Global Research and employment with Food Systems for the Future. Dr. Mozaffarian has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Vail Innovative Global Research, and the Kaiser Permanente Fund at East Bay Community Foundation; personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Barilla, Danone, and Motif FoodWorks; is on the scientific advisory board for Beren Therapeutics, Brightseed, Calibrate, DiscernDx, Elysium Health, Filtricine, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day, Tiny Organics and (ended) Day Two and Season Health; has stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo; and receives chapter royalties from UpToDate.

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