Clinical Endocrinology News

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Two diabetes management devices that aid in the precision of insulin delivery have been recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.

On March 2, the FDA cleared the Android version of Bigfoot Biomedical’s Unity Mobile App for use with its system of smart pen caps that are compatible with different disposable insulin pens for administering both long-acting and rapid-acting insulin.

The system, which has been compatible with iOS devices since May 2021, is “the first and only FDA-cleared smart injection system that turns CGM [continuous glucose monitoring] data into dosing recommendations displayed right on the pen cap for people using multiple daily [insulin] injection therapy,” according to a company statement.

The Bigfoot app allows users to input and review provider treatment recommendations, displays current glucose ranges, and delivers real-time alerts.

Once it is commercially launched, the Android phone application will be available via the Google Play Store. “Given that 41% of U.S. smartphone users choose Android devices, this clearance enables expanded access to a large group of people with diabetes,” the company said.

On March 6, the FDA cleared the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 devices as “integrated” CGM sensors. This means that they can now be used as components in automated insulin delivery systems, along with insulin pumps and connectivity software.

Abbott is working with insulin pump manufacturers Insulet and Tandem in the United States for integration with the FreeStyle Libre versions 2 and 3. Outside the United States, the Libre 3 is already authorized to work with mylife Loop from Ypsomed and CamDiab in Germany. Further launches are expected in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands later this year.

The modified FreeStyle Libre 2 and FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors have been cleared for use by patients as young as age 2 years and for up to 15 days, in contrast to the previous versions, which were available for patients as young as 4 years for use up to 14 days. The FDA has cleared all Libre sensors – 2 and 3, current and future versions – for use by pregnant women with any type of diabetes.

The modified sensors will be available in the United States later this year and will eventually replace the Libre sensors in current use, the company said in a statement.

“The FreeStyle Libre portfolio is still the most affordable CGM on the market,” an Abbott representative said in an interview.

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

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.

“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

a_namenko/Getty Images

“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.

Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.

In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.

“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”

He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.” 

For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.

They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.

On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.

Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).

Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004).  Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).

After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.

After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
 

‘Closer monitoring needed’

“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”

He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.

“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”

He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001). 

“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”

Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.

“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
 

Jury still out

Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”

Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.  

“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said. 

“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.

The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who are taking a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to prolong their lives will typically keep going without a break until the disease progresses or toxicities such as severe fatigue and diarrhea become intolerable.

That might soon change with the publication of a unique study. Lasting 10 years, the phase 3 STAR trial involved 920 patients across 60 cancer centers. These patients had advanced kidney cancer and were taking either sunitinib (Sutent) or pazopanib (Votrient).

The results showed that taking an occasional respite from TKI therapy had little impact on the patient’s survival.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research because drug companies never run studies on how to reduce the use of their drug, commented lead author Janet Brown, MD, of the University of Sheffield (England).

“We rely on the NIHR to do these important trials that … companies wouldn’t do,” she commented to this news organization.

Commenting on the rationale for STAR, coauthor Jenny Hewison, PhD, of Leeds (England) University School of Medicine, explained that patients often find it difficult to tolerate TKIs. “Although these patients are getting the best treatment that we can offer them, it’s very demanding. … It could make them feel tired, quite unwell. And there can be a range of other effects including sickness and diarrhea.”

As an example, 77% of patients in the pivotal trial of sunitinib in kidney cancer experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse events such as hypertension (13%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (10%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%).

Both sunitinib and pazopanib carry label warnings of severe and fatal hepatotoxicity.

Also, in contrast to conventional chemotherapy, which is usually given in a finite number of courses, treatment with TKIs carries on indefinitely.

“It feels like you’re taking [TKIs] for the whole of the rest of your life,” said Dr. Brown.
 

Study details

The STAR trial, an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled study, is the first phase 3 study of treatment breaks in renal cell carcinoma. The participants had inoperable locoregional or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and had received no systemic therapy for advanced disease.

They were randomly assigned before TKI treatment to a conventional continuation strategy or a drug-free interval approach. The treating physician decided whether a patient would take sunitinib or pazopanib.

All participants took their drugs for four cycles (6 weeks each cycle). At the 24-week point, those with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease began their randomized assignment.

Individuals who took a break continued until their disease progressed, at which point therapy was resumed. They could take further treatment breaks once their disease was back under control. The group on continuous treatment kept going until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Median follow up was 58 months.

In both the per-protocol and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations, overall survival was 28 months for the people who received continuous treatment vs. 27 months for those who took a break. Statistical noninferiority was established in the ITT population but not in the per-protocol population.

The median length of all treatment breaks was 87 days. Many people took two or more breaks; one patient took nine breaks overall. The breaks were popular: only 3% of participants who were meant to stop therapy withdrew from the study in order to continue their treatment.

Said Dr. Hewison: “In the very early days of planning the study there were some doubts as to whether it would succeed because of potential unwillingness of people to stop treatment for a while.”

Dr. Brown agreed: “People did worry about that initially, but it actually seemed to be more the other way around. By that time – 6 months – people were relieved to be there. …We actually had some people from the other arm asking, could they also have a break?”

To understand better the benefits of treatment breaks to patients, Janine Bestall, PhD, a senior research fellow in applied health research at the University of Leeds, conducted a qualitative study in parallel with the main trial.

Summing up the patients’ experiences, Dr. Bestall said the drug-free periods “gave them more time.”

Dr. Bestall quoted one patient who said: “I know that things can happen and it grows back, but you’ve always got the buffer there knowing that you can go back and get help. But you actually lead a normal life and the advantage is, yeah, you can go on holiday, you can actually do more things in the garden, cleaning up, painting, whatever needs doing, you do it.”

Dr. Brown said, “I had a lady who, when she was on the trial, had four breaks in total, one when her daughter got married, and [she said] that was really nice for her to do all the shopping and all the normal things that you do, and not be on something that was making her tired and causing sore hands and diarrhea.” 

The drug-free interval strategy provided annual cost savings of 3,235 pounds sterling ($3,850) and a noninferior quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit in both the ITT and per-protocol populations.

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 9% of patients in the treatment-break group versus 12% of the continuous-treatment group.

The authors of the study concluded, “Treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.”
 

Changes in treatment strategies

The STAR trial started recruiting in January 2012.

Since that time, immunotherapy has taken over as first-line treatment for many patients with advanced ccRCC in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, TKIs still have a place. The NCCN Kidney Cancer 2022 Guidelines recommend both sunitinib and pazopanib as options for first-line therapy in advanced disease. The 2022 ASCO Metastatic ccRCC guidelines recommend either drug as first-line treatment in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or in monotherapy if there are “coexisting medical problems.”

In the United States, intermittent sunitinib in metastatic RCC was tested in a small study in 2017 with little activity in the literature since then. The authors, led by Moshe Ornstein, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, concluded at the time that sunitinib treatment breaks were feasible and “clinical efficacy does not seem to be compromised.” Dr. Ornstein was approached for comment on this latest U.K. study but declined.

Back in the United Kingdom, the results of STAR arrived just in time.

Said Dr. Brown: “This has … been really helpful in the U.K. in the pandemic when people said, can these patients have extra breaks? At the worst of the pandemic we were able to say, sure, if it’s stable, we can keep them off for 3-6 months. …And so that’s already had a powerful impact.”

Dr. Brown concluded, “I think what the trial does allow us to do, as individual oncologists, is to look at the patients that this might be suitable for – it won’t be everybody – and to say yes, it’s okay to personalize things.”

The study was funded by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Bestall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hewison reported funding to her institution from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Brown reports having served as a consultant or adviser for Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Bayer; research funding paid to their institution from the National Institute for Health and Care Research; and travel expenses from Ipsen. Other coauthors reported numerous relationships with industry.

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

A physician’s specialty can make a difference when it comes to having suicidal thoughts. Doctors who specialize in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry reported double the rates of suicidal thoughts than doctors in oncology, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine, according to Doctors’ Burden: Medscape Physician Suicide Report 2023.

“The specialties with the highest reporting of physician suicidal thoughts are also those with the greatest physician shortages, based on the number of job openings posted by recruiting sites,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, professor of psychiatry and chief wellness officer at UC Davis Health.

Doctors in those specialties are overworked, which can lead to burnout, he said. “While burnout doesn’t cause depression, it’s correlated with depression and suicidal ideation.”

There’s also a generational divide among physicians who reported suicidal thoughts. Millennials (age 27-41) and Gen-X physicians (age 42-56) were more likely to report these thoughts than were Baby Boomers (age 57-75) and the Silent Generation (age 76-95).

“Younger physicians are more burned out – they may have less control over their lives and less meaning than some older doctors who can do what they want,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

One millennial respondent commented that being on call and being required to chart detailed notes in the EHR has contributed to her burnout. “I’m more impatient and make less time and effort to see my friends and family.”

One Silent Generation respondent commented, “I am semi-retired, I take no call, I work no weekends, I provide anesthesia care in my area of special expertise, I work clinically about 46 days a year. Life is good, particularly compared to my younger colleagues who are working 60-plus hours a week with evening work, weekend work, and call. I feel really sorry for them.”    

When young people enter medical school, they’re quite healthy, with low rates of depression and burnout, said Dr. Yellowlees. Yet, studies have shown that rates of burnout and suicidal thoughts increased within 2 years. “That reflects what happens when a group of idealistic young people hit a horrible system,” he said.
 

Who’s responsible?

Millennials were three times as likely as baby boomers to say that a medical school or health care organization should be responsible when a student or physician commits suicide.

“Young physicians may expect more of their employers than my generation did, which we see in residency programs that have unionized,” said Dr. Yellowlees, a Baby Boomer.

“As more young doctors are employed by health care organizations, they also may expect more resources to be available to them, such as wellness programs,” he added.

Younger doctors also focus more on work-life balance than older doctors, including time off and having hobbies, he said. “They are much more rational in terms of their overall beliefs and expectations than the older generation.”
 

Whom doctors confide in

Nearly 60% of physician-respondents with suicidal thoughts said they confided in a professional or someone they knew. Men were just as likely as women to reach out to a therapist (38%), whereas men were slightly more likely to confide in a family member and women were slightly more likely to confide in a colleague.

“It’s interesting that women are more active in seeking support at work – they often have developed a network of colleagues to support each other’s careers and whom they can confide in,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He emphasized that 40% of physicians said they didn’t confide in anyone when they had suicidal thoughts. Of those, just over half said they could cope without professional help.

One respondent commented, “It’s just a thought; nothing I would actually do.” Another commented, “Mental health professionals can’t fix the underlying reason for the problem.”

Many doctors were concerned about risking disclosure to their medical boards (42%); that it would show up on their insurance records (33%); and that their colleagues would find out (25%), according to the report.

One respondent commented, “I don’t trust doctors to keep it to themselves.”

Another barrier doctors mentioned was a lack of time to seek help. One commented, “Time. I have none, when am I supposed to find an hour for counseling?”

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

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Adults who follow a heart-healthy lifestyle are more likely to live longer and to be free of chronic health conditions, based on data from a pair of related studies from the United States and United Kingdom involving nearly 200,000 individuals.

FatCamera/Getty Images

The studies, presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting in Boston, assessed the impact of cardiovascular health on life expectancy and freedom from chronic diseases. Cardiovascular health (CVH) was based on the Life’s Essential 8 (LE8) score, a composite of health metrics released by the American Heart Association in 2022. The LE8 was developed to guide research and assessment of cardiovascular health, and includes diet, physical activity, tobacco/nicotine exposure, sleep, body mass index, non-HDL cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

In one study, Xuan Wang, MD, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in the department of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues reviewed data from 136,599 adults in the United Kingdom Biobank who were free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia at baseline, and for whom complete LE8 data were available.

CVH was classified as poor, intermediate, and ideal, defined as LE8 scores of less than 50, 50 to 80, and 80 or higher, respectively.

The goal of the study was to examine the role of CVH based on LE8 scores on the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases.

Men and women with ideal CVH averaged 5.2 years and 6.3 years more of total life expectancy at age 50 years, compared with those with poor CVH. Out of total life expectancy, the percentage of life expectancy free of chronic diseases was 75.9% and 83.4% for men and women, respectively, compared with 64.9% and 69.4%, respectively, for men and women with poor CVH.

The researchers also found that disparities in the percentage of disease-free years for both men and women were reduced in the high CVH groups.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of only CVD, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in the definition of “disease-free life expectancy,” the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study. Other limitations include the lack of data on e-cigarettes, and the homogeneous White study population. More research is needed in diverse populations who experience a stronger impact from negative social determinants of health, they said.

In a second study, Hao Ma, MD, and colleagues reviewed data from 23,003 adults who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 2005 and 2018 with mortality linked to the National Death Index through Dec. 31, 2019. The goal of the second study was to examine the association between CVH based on LE8 scores and life expectancy.

Over a median follow-up of 7.8 years, deaths occurred in 772 men and 587 women, said Dr. Ma, a postdoctoral fellow and biostatistician in epidemiology at Tulane University and coauthor on Dr. Wang’s study.

The estimated life expectancies at age 50 years for men with poor, intermediate, and ideal cardiovascular health based on the LE8 were 25.5 years, 31.2 years, and 33.1 years, respectively.

For women, the corresponding life expectancies for women at age 50 with poor, intermediate, and ideal CVH were 29.5 years, 34.2 years, and 38.4 years, respectively.

Men and women had similar gains in life expectancy from adhering to a heart-healthy lifestyle as defined by the LE8 score that reduced their risk of death from cardiovascular disease (41.8% and 44.1%, respectively).

Associations of cardiovascular health and life expectancy were similar for non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Blacks, but not among people of Mexican heritage, and more research is needed in diverse populations, the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by several factors including potential changes in cardiovascular health during the follow-up period, and by the limited analysis of racial and ethnic groups to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and people of Mexican heritage because of small sample sizes for other racial/ethnic groups, the researchers noted in a press release accompanying the study.

The message for clinicians and their patients is that adherence to cardiovascular health as defined by the LE8 will help not only extend life, but enhance quality of life, Dr. Xang and Dr. Ma said in an interview. “If your overall CVH score is low, we might be able to focus on one element first and improve them one by one,” they said. Sedentary lifestyle and an unhealthy diet are barriers to improving LE8 metrics that can be addressed, they added.

More research is needed to examine the effects of LE8 on high-risk patients, the researchers told this news organization. “No studies have yet focused on these patients with chronic diseases. We suspect that LE8 will play a role even in these high-risk groups,” they said. Further studies should include diverse populations and evaluations of the association between CVH change and health outcomes, they added.

“Overall, we see this 7.5-year difference [in life expectancy] going from poor to high cardiovascular health,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, in a video accompanying the presentation of the study findings. The impact on life expectancy is yet another reason to motivate people to improve their cardiovascular health, said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, immediate past president of the American Heart Association and lead author on the writing group for Life’s Essential 8. “The earlier we do this, the better, and the greater the gains in life expectancy we’re likely to see in the U.S. population,” he said.

People maintaining high cardiovascular health into midlife are avoiding not only cardiovascular disease, but other chronic diseases of aging, Dr. Lloyd-Jones added. These conditions are delayed until much later in the lifespan, which allows people to enjoy better quality of life for more of their remaining years, he said.

The meeting was sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Both studies were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health; the Fogarty International Center; and the Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Following a fish-based pescatarian diet or plant-based vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with not only the greatest benefit to health but also the lowest impact on the environment, suggests a new analysis that reveals meat-based, as well as keto and paleo diets, to be the worst on both measures.

The research was published online in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

To obtain a real-world view on the environmental and health impact of diets as consumed by U.S. adults, the team examined a nationally representative survey of the 1-day eating habits of more than 16,000 individuals.

This revealed that the best quality diet was pescatarian, followed by vegetarian and vegan diets. Omnivore diets, although less healthy, tended to score better than keto and paleo diets, which were the lowest ranked.

Both keto and paleo diets tend to be higher in animal foods and lower in plant foods than other popular diets, the researchers explain in their study, and they both have been associated with negative effects on blood lipids, specifically increased LDL cholesterol, raising concern about the long-term health outcomes associated with these diets.”

Analysis of the environmental impact of the different eating patterns showed that the vegan diet had the lowest carbon footprint, followed by the vegetarian and pescatarian diets. The omnivore, paleo, and keto diets had a far higher carbon footprint, with that of the keto diet more than four times greater than that for a vegan diet.

“Climate change is arguably one of the most pressing problems of our time, and a lot of people are interested in moving to a plant-based diet,” said senior author Diego Rose, PhD, MPH, RD, in a press release.

“Based on our results, that would reduce your footprint and be generally healthy,” noted Dr. Rose, nutrition program director, Tulane University, New Orleans.

To determine the carbon footprint and quality of popular diets as they are consumed by U.S. adults, Keelia O’Malley, PhD, MPH, Amelia Willits-Smith, PhD, MSc, and Dr. Rose, all with Tulane University, studied 24-hour recall data from the ongoing, nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2005-2010.

The data, which was captured by trained interviewers using a validated tool, was matched with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Patterns Equivalents Database to categorize the participants into one of six mutually exclusive categories: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo, or omnivore.

The omnivore category included anyone who did not fit into any of the preceding categories.

The environmental impact of the diets was then calculated by matching the established greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of over 300 commodities to foods listed on the NHANES, which was then summarized for each individual to give a carbon footprint for their 1-day diet.

Finally, the quality of their diet was estimated using the 2010 versions of the Healthy Eating Index and the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, both of which award a score to food components based on their impact on health.

Overall, 16,412 individuals were included in the analysis, of whom 52.1% were female.

The most common diet was omnivore, which was followed by 83.6% of respondents, followed by vegetarian (7.5%), pescatarian (4.7%), vegan (0.7%), keto (0.4%), and paleo diets (0.3%).

The lowest carbon footprint was seen with a vegan diet, at an average of 0.69 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal consumed, followed by a vegetarian diet (1.16 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal) and pescatarian diet (1.66 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

The highest carbon footprints were observed with the omnivore (2.23 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), paleo (2.62 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal), and keto diets (2.91 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per 1,000 kcal).

In terms of diet quality, the pescatarian diet was ranked the highest on both eating index scores, followed by the vegetarian, then vegan, diets. The order of the three lowest scores depended on the index used, with either the keto or paleo diet deemed to be the worst quality.

Analysis of individuals following an omnivore diet suggested that those who ate in line with the DASH or Mediterranean diets had higher diet quality, as well as a lower environmental impact, than other people within the group.

Hence, Dr. Rose observed, “Our research ... shows there is a way to improve your health and footprint without giving up meat entirely.”

The researchers acknowledge that the use of 1-day diets has limitations, including that whatever individuals may have eaten during those 24 hours may not correspond to their overall day-in, day-out diet.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Rose declares relationships with the Center for Biological Diversity, the NCI, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Willits-Smith has received funding from CBD and NCI. Dr. O’Malley has received funding from HRSA.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

Drinking a no-or low-calorie nonnutritive sweetened (NNS) beverage was no different from drinking water in terms of effect on 2-hour postprandial levels of glucose and hormones related to appetite or food intake.

Drinking a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), however, had a different effect on postprandial levels of glucose and the hormones insulin, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), ghrelin, leptin, and glucagon.

These findings are from a new meta-analysis by Roselyn Zhang and colleagues, supported by the nonprofit organization Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. The study was published recently in Nutrients.

“Nonnutritive sweeteners have no acute metabolic or endocrine effects and they are similar to water in that respect, and they show a different response from caloric sweeteners,” study author Tauseef Khan, MBBS, PhD, summarized in an interview following a press briefing from the IAFNS.

“Our study supports that nonnutritive sweeteners are a healthier alternative to sugar-sweetened beverages or caloric beverages,” said Dr. Khan, an epidemiologist in the department of nutritional sciences, University of Toronto.

Most participants in the 36 trials included in the meta-analysis were healthy, he noted. However, for certain types of NNS beverages, “we had enough studies for type 2 diabetes to also assess that separately, and the results were the same: Nonnutritive sweeteners were no different from water; however, they were different from caloric sweeteners.”

Of note, none of the studies included erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener in keto and other types of foods – which was associated with a risk for adverse cardiac events in a paper in Nature Medicine.
 

Are these NNS drinks largely inert?

“This [meta-analysis] implies that sweeteners are largely inert,” in terms of acute postprandial glucose and hormone response, but the review did not include newer reports that differ, Duane Mellor, PhD, RD, RNutr, who was not involved with the research, noted in an email.

“This is possibly,” he said, because the study “only reviewed the literature up until January 2022 and therefore it missed the World Health Organization review ‘Health Effects of the Use of Non-Sugar Sweeteners’ published in April [2022], and a study published in August 2022 in the journal Cell suggesting that some nonnutritive sweeteners may have a minor effect on gut microbiome and glucose response.

“Although there is a place of nonnutritive sweeteners as a way to reduce sugar intake, they are a small part of dietary pattern and lifestyle which can help reduce risk of disease,” said Dr. Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England.

“So, although we are clear we need to reduce our intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, switching to non-nutritive sweetened beverages (such as diet sodas) is not necessarily the healthiest option, as unlike water, it seems that some nonnutritive sweeteners may influence glucose responses and levels of related hormones in more recent studies.”
 

NNS beverages ‘are similar to water’

Dr. Khan pointed out that the meta-analysis addressed two major concerns about NNS beverages.

First, the “sweet uncoupling hypothesis” proposes that low-calorie sweeteners affect sweet taste by separating sweet taste from calories. “The body is confused, and then there is hormonal change. Our study shows that actually that’s not true, and [NNS beverages] are similar to water.”

Second, when no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners are taken with calories (coupling), a concern is that “then you eat more somehow, or your response is different. However, the results [in this meta-analysis] also show that that is not the case for glucose response, insulin response, and other hormonal markers.”

“The strength is not that low-calorie sweeteners have some benefit per se,” he elaborated. “The advantage is that they replace caloric beverages.

“We are not saying that anybody who is not taking low-calorie sweeteners should start taking [them],” he continued. “What we are saying is somebody who is taking sugar-sweetened beverages and has a problem of taking excess calories, if you replace those calories with low-calorie sweetener, replacement of calories itself may be beneficial, and also they should not be concerned of any [acute] issues with a moderate amount of low-calorie sweeteners.”
 

Postprandial effect of NNS beverages, SSBs, water

Eight NNS are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, acesulfame potassium (ace-K), luo han guo (monkfruit) extract, neotame, saccharin, stevia, sucralose, and advantame, the researchers noted.

Ms. Zhang and colleagues searched the literature up until Jan. 15, 2022, for studies of NNS beverages and acute postprandial glycemic and endocrine responses.

Trials were excluded if they involved sugar alcohols (eg, erythritol) or rare sugars (eg, allulose), or if they were shorter than 2 hours, lacked a comparator arm, or did not provide suitable endpoint data.

They identified 36 randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of 472 predominantly healthy participants: 21 trials (15 reports, n = 266) with NNS consumed alone (uncoupled), 3 trials (3 reports, n = 27) with NNS consumed in a solution containing a carbohydrate (coupled), and 12 trials (7 reports, n = 179) with NNS consumed up to 15 minutes before oral glucose carbohydrate load (delayed coupling).

The four types of beverages were single NNS (ace-K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, stevia, and sucralose), NNS blends (ace-K + aspartame; ace-K + sucralose; ace-K + aspartame + cyclamate; and ace-K + aspartame + sucralose), SSBs (glucose, sucrose, and fructose), and water (control).

In the uncoupled interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon, with responses similar to water.

In the uncoupled interventions, SSBs sweetened with caloric sugars (glucose and sucrose) increased postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, and GIP responses, with no differences in postprandial ghrelin and glucagon responses.

In the coupled and delayed coupling interventions, NNS beverages had no postprandial glucose and endocrine effects, with responses similar to water.

The studies generally had low to moderate confidence.

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from IAFNS. Dr. Khan has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the National Honey Board. He has received honorariums for lectures from the International Food Information Council and the IAFNS. Dr. Mellor has no disclosures.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data show a high and rising burden of most cardiovascular (CV) risk factors among young adults aged 20-44 years in the United States.

In this age group, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, no improvement in the prevalence of hypertension, and a decrease in the prevalence of hyperlipidemia.

Yet medical treatment rates for CV risk factors are “surprisingly” low among young adults, study investigator Rishi Wadhera, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

Preventing a tsunami of heart disease

The findings stem from a cross-sectional study of 12,294 U.S. adults aged 20-44 years (mean age, 32; 51% women) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles for 2009-2010 to 2017-2020.

Overall, the prevalence of hypertension was 9.3% in 2009-2010 and increased to 11.5% in 2017-2020. The prevalence of diabetes rose from 3.0% to 4.1%, and the prevalence of obesity rose from 32.7% to 40.9%. The prevalence of hyperlipidemia decreased from 40.5% to 36.1%.

Black adults consistently had high rates of hypertension during the study period – 16.2% in 2009-2010 and 20.1% in 2017-2020 – and significant increases in hypertension occurred among Mexican American adults (from 6.5% to 9.5%) and other Hispanic adults (from 4.4% to 10.5%), while Mexican American adults had a significant uptick in diabetes (from 4.3% to 7.5%).

Equally concerning, said Dr. Wadhera, is the fact that only about 55% of young adults with hypertension were receiving antihypertensive medication, and just 1 in 2 young adults with diabetes were receiving treatment. “These low rates were driven, in part, by many young adults not being aware of their diagnosis,” he noted.

The NHANES data also show that the percentage of young adults who were treated for hypertension and who achieved blood pressure control did not change significantly over the study period (65.0% in 2009-2010 and 74.8% in 2017-2020). Blood sugar control among young adults being treated for diabetes remained suboptimal throughout the study period (45.5% in 2009-2010 and 56.6% in 2017-2020).

“The fact that blood pressure control and glycemic control are so poor is really worrisome,” Jeffrey Berger, MD, director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at NYU Langone Heart, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

NYU Langone

Double down on screening

Dr. Wadhera said “we need to double down on efforts to screen for and treat cardiovascular risk factors like high blood pressure and diabetes in young adults. We need to intensify clinical and public health interventions focused on primordial and primary prevention in young adults now so that we can avoid a tsunami of cardiovascular disease in the long term.”

“It’s critically important that young adults speak with their health care provider about whether – and when – they should undergo screening for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol,” Dr. Wadhera added.

Dr. Berger said one problem is that younger people often have a “superman or superwoman” view and don’t comprehend that they are at risk for some of these conditions. Studies such as this “reinforce the idea that it’s never too young to be checked out.”

As a cardiologist who specializes in cardiovascular prevention, Dr. Berger said he sometimes hears patients say things like, “I don’t ever want to need a cardiologist,” or “I hope I never need a cardiologist.”

“My response is, ‘There are many different types of cardiologists,’ and I think it would really be helpful for many people to see a prevention-focused cardiologist way before they have problems,” he said in an interview.

“As a system, medicine has become very good at treating patients with different diseases. I think we need to get better in terms of preventing some of these problems,” Dr. Berger added.

In their editorial, Dr. Allen and Dr. Wilkins say the “foundation of cardiovascular health begins early in life. These worsening trends in risk factors highlight the importance of focusing on prevention in adolescence and young adulthood in order to promote cardiovascular health across the lifetime.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Wadhera has served as a consultant for Abbott and CVS Health. Dr. Wilkins has received personal fees from 3M. Dr. Berger has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

I am often asked about the impact of dietary nutrients on bone health, particularly as many patients with low bone density, many with a history of multiple fractures, are referred to me. Many factors affect bone density, an important predictor of fracture risk, including genetics, body weight and muscle mass, bone loading exercise, menstrual status, other hormonal factors, nutritional status, optimal absorption of dietary nutrients, and medication use.

Dietary nutrients include macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fat, and fiber) and micronutrients (such as dietary minerals and vitamins). The importance of micronutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamins C, D, and K in optimizing bone mineralization and bone formation has been well documented.

The impact of protein intake on bone health is slightly more controversial, with some studies suggesting that increased protein intake may be deleterious to bone by increasing acid load, which in turn, increases calcium loss in urine. Overall data analysis from multiple studies support the finding that a higher protein intake is modestly beneficial for bone at certain sites, such as the spine.

Though data regarding the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone are not as robust, it’s important to understand these effects given the increasing knowledge of the deleterious impact of processed carbohydrates on weight and cardiometabolic outcomes. This leads to the growing recommendations to limit carbohydrates in diet.
 

Quality and quantity of carbs affect bone health

Available studies suggest that both the quality and quantity of carbohydrates that are in a diet as well as the glycemic index of food may affect bone outcomes. Glycemic index refers to the extent of blood glucose elevation that occurs after the intake of any specific food. Foods with a higher glycemic index cause a rapid increase in blood glucose, whereas those with a low glycemic index result in a slower and more gradual increase. Examples of high–glycemic index food include processed and baked foods (such as breakfast cereals [unless whole grain], pretzels, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, cake, white bread, bagels, croissants, and corn chips), sugar-sweetened beverages, white rice, fast food (such as pizza and burgers), and potatoes. Examples of low glycemic index foods include vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy and dairy products (without added sugar), whole-grain foods (such as oat porridge), and nuts.

A high–glycemic index diet has been associated with a greater risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, and with lower bone density, an increased risk for fracture. This has been attributed to acute increases in glucose and insulin levels after consumption of high–glycemic index food, which causes increased oxidative stress and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, that activate cells in bone that increase bone loss.

Higher blood glucose concentrations induced by a higher dietary glycemic index can have deleterious effects on osteoblasts, the cells important for bone formation, and increase bone loss through production of advanced glycation end products that affect the cross linking of collagen in bone (important for bone strength), as well as calcium loss in urine. This was recently reported in a study by Garcia-Gavilan and others, in which the authors showed that high dietary glycemic index and dietary glucose load are associated with a higher risk for osteoporosis-related fractures in an older Mediterranean population who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Similar data were reported by Nouri and coauthors in a study from Iran.

The quantity and quality of dietary carbohydrates may also have an impact on bone. The quality of carbohydrates has been assessed using the carbohydrate quality index (CQI) and the low carbohydrate diet score (LCDS). The CQI takes into account dietary fiber intake, glycemic index, intake of processed vs. whole grain, and solid vs. total carbohydrates in diet. A higher CQI diet is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk. Higher LCDS reflects lower carbohydrate and higher fat and protein intake.

Diets that are rich in refined or processed carbohydrates with added sugar are proinflammatory and increase oxidative stress, which may lead to increased bone loss, low bone density, and increased fracture risk. These foods also have a high glycemic index.

In contrast, diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and olive oil have a lower glycemic index and are beneficial to bone. These diets have a higher CQI and LCDS (as reported by Nouri and coauthors) and provide a rich source of antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients (such as calcium, magnesium, and vitamins B, C, and K), which are all beneficial to bone. Gao and others have reported that implementing a low glycemic index pulse-based diet (lentils, peas, beans) is superior to a regular hospital diet in preventing the increase in bone loss that typically occurs during hospitalization with enforced bed rest.

Most reports of the impact of carbohydrates on bone health are from observational studies. In an interventional study, Dalskov and coauthors randomly assigned children aged 5-18 years who had parents with overweight to one of five diets (high protein/low glycemic index, high protein/high glycemic index, low protein/low glycemic index, low protein/high glycemic index, or regular) for 6 months.

Contrasting with our understanding that protein intake is overall good for bone, this study found that among patients receiving a high–glycemic index diet, those who were on a high-protein diet had greater reductions in a bone formation marker than did those on a low-protein diet, with no major changes observed with the other diets. This suggests the influence of associated dietary nutrients on bone outcomes and that protein intake may modify the effects of dietary carbohydrates on bone formation. Similarly, the fat content of food can alter the glycemic index and thus may modify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone.

In summary, available data suggest that the quantity and quality of carbohydrates, including the glycemic index of food, may affect bone health and that it is important to exercise moderation in the consumption of such foods. However, there are only a few studies that have examined these associations, and more studies are necessary to further clarify the impact of dietary carbohydrates on bone as well as any modifications of these effects by other associated food groups. These studies will allow us to refine our recommendations to our patients as we advance our understanding of the impact of the combined effects of various dietary nutrients on bone.

Madhusmita Misra, MD, MPH, is chief of the division of pediatric endocrinology, Mass General for Children, Boston, and serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ipsen.

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

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.