Clinical Endocrinology News

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”

To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.

Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. Compared with the other participants, these 16 women had significant upregulation of genes driving inflammatory pathways and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.

“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
 

Findings draw skepticism

“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.

“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”

Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.

Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.

“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”

The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”

To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.

Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. Compared with the other participants, these 16 women had significant upregulation of genes driving inflammatory pathways and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.

“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
 

Findings draw skepticism

“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.

“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”

Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.

Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.

“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”

The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”

To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.

Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. Compared with the other participants, these 16 women had significant upregulation of genes driving inflammatory pathways and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.

“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
 

Findings draw skepticism

“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.

“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”

Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.

Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.

“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”

The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

When a secret shopper used telemedicine to request testosterone supplements, options were plentiful but good advice was scarce. As researchers showed, companies offered testosterone replacement therapy to the prospective buyer even though his stated T level was much higher than the cut-off for low testosterone levels.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) delivery of testosterone or medications for erectile dysfunction has become routine. The many benefits of wide access include convenience and the ability to discuss sensitive topics in a safe environment. But as the new findings indicate, a lack of adherence to solid medical advice – such as guidance from the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association – may be putting some people at risk for potentially harmful outcomes.

The Endocrine Society and the AUA state that only people with true testosterone deficiency should receive a T boost. Both groups discourage men who are planning to become parents in the near future from taking supplemental testosterone because of possible harms to their fertility.

“When guidelines are not being followed, there’s always the potential that we might not get the best outcomes for patients,” said Joshua A. Halpern, MD, a urologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who led the study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To conduct the research, the secret shopper approached seven different DTC testosterone websites with the same story for each: He was a 34-year-old man with low energy and libido who hoped to become a father soon. The customer noted that he had a testosterone level of 675 ng/dL, well above the 300 ng/dL the AUA considers low.

Despite these red flags – the normal T levels, the parenthood aspirations – representatives of almost every platform moved the shopper along toward receiving additional testosterone, with no attention to the possible harms to fertility. Only one platform declined to offer the testosterone because the shopper’s T levels were sufficient. In the other cases the secret shopper did not go forward with obtaining the medication, which would have required a prescription.

“Our goal with this study was to achieve a better understanding of what patients are experiencing and what’s out there,” Dr. Halpern said. While this study focused on cisgender patients, Dr. Halpern noted that it’s also important to understand the experiences of transgender patients who seek DTC hormonal therapy.

The research could help keep DTC companies more honest, according to Jesse N. Mills, MD, a urologist and men’s health specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the work. DTC platforms are financially incentivized to dispense medications regardless of need, unlike a traditional doctor who generally has no personal financial stake in a prescription.

“We need to keep the heat on DTC platforms,” Dr. Mills said, calling the article a “punchback” against the current DTC model for testosterone products. Dr. Mills said he is not opposed to telemedicine or DTC practices in general, adding that UCLA made a successful pivot to telemedicine during the pandemic.

“You can set up a lot of good care through video visits,” Dr. Mills said, as long as the system is ethical.

Dr. Halpern and Dr. Mills reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When a secret shopper used telemedicine to request testosterone supplements, options were plentiful but good advice was scarce. As researchers showed, companies offered testosterone replacement therapy to the prospective buyer even though his stated T level was much higher than the cut-off for low testosterone levels.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) delivery of testosterone or medications for erectile dysfunction has become routine. The many benefits of wide access include convenience and the ability to discuss sensitive topics in a safe environment. But as the new findings indicate, a lack of adherence to solid medical advice – such as guidance from the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association – may be putting some people at risk for potentially harmful outcomes.

The Endocrine Society and the AUA state that only people with true testosterone deficiency should receive a T boost. Both groups discourage men who are planning to become parents in the near future from taking supplemental testosterone because of possible harms to their fertility.

“When guidelines are not being followed, there’s always the potential that we might not get the best outcomes for patients,” said Joshua A. Halpern, MD, a urologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who led the study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To conduct the research, the secret shopper approached seven different DTC testosterone websites with the same story for each: He was a 34-year-old man with low energy and libido who hoped to become a father soon. The customer noted that he had a testosterone level of 675 ng/dL, well above the 300 ng/dL the AUA considers low.

Despite these red flags – the normal T levels, the parenthood aspirations – representatives of almost every platform moved the shopper along toward receiving additional testosterone, with no attention to the possible harms to fertility. Only one platform declined to offer the testosterone because the shopper’s T levels were sufficient. In the other cases the secret shopper did not go forward with obtaining the medication, which would have required a prescription.

“Our goal with this study was to achieve a better understanding of what patients are experiencing and what’s out there,” Dr. Halpern said. While this study focused on cisgender patients, Dr. Halpern noted that it’s also important to understand the experiences of transgender patients who seek DTC hormonal therapy.

The research could help keep DTC companies more honest, according to Jesse N. Mills, MD, a urologist and men’s health specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the work. DTC platforms are financially incentivized to dispense medications regardless of need, unlike a traditional doctor who generally has no personal financial stake in a prescription.

“We need to keep the heat on DTC platforms,” Dr. Mills said, calling the article a “punchback” against the current DTC model for testosterone products. Dr. Mills said he is not opposed to telemedicine or DTC practices in general, adding that UCLA made a successful pivot to telemedicine during the pandemic.

“You can set up a lot of good care through video visits,” Dr. Mills said, as long as the system is ethical.

Dr. Halpern and Dr. Mills reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When a secret shopper used telemedicine to request testosterone supplements, options were plentiful but good advice was scarce. As researchers showed, companies offered testosterone replacement therapy to the prospective buyer even though his stated T level was much higher than the cut-off for low testosterone levels.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) delivery of testosterone or medications for erectile dysfunction has become routine. The many benefits of wide access include convenience and the ability to discuss sensitive topics in a safe environment. But as the new findings indicate, a lack of adherence to solid medical advice – such as guidance from the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association – may be putting some people at risk for potentially harmful outcomes.

The Endocrine Society and the AUA state that only people with true testosterone deficiency should receive a T boost. Both groups discourage men who are planning to become parents in the near future from taking supplemental testosterone because of possible harms to their fertility.

“When guidelines are not being followed, there’s always the potential that we might not get the best outcomes for patients,” said Joshua A. Halpern, MD, a urologist at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, who led the study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To conduct the research, the secret shopper approached seven different DTC testosterone websites with the same story for each: He was a 34-year-old man with low energy and libido who hoped to become a father soon. The customer noted that he had a testosterone level of 675 ng/dL, well above the 300 ng/dL the AUA considers low.

Despite these red flags – the normal T levels, the parenthood aspirations – representatives of almost every platform moved the shopper along toward receiving additional testosterone, with no attention to the possible harms to fertility. Only one platform declined to offer the testosterone because the shopper’s T levels were sufficient. In the other cases the secret shopper did not go forward with obtaining the medication, which would have required a prescription.

“Our goal with this study was to achieve a better understanding of what patients are experiencing and what’s out there,” Dr. Halpern said. While this study focused on cisgender patients, Dr. Halpern noted that it’s also important to understand the experiences of transgender patients who seek DTC hormonal therapy.

The research could help keep DTC companies more honest, according to Jesse N. Mills, MD, a urologist and men’s health specialist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the work. DTC platforms are financially incentivized to dispense medications regardless of need, unlike a traditional doctor who generally has no personal financial stake in a prescription.

“We need to keep the heat on DTC platforms,” Dr. Mills said, calling the article a “punchback” against the current DTC model for testosterone products. Dr. Mills said he is not opposed to telemedicine or DTC practices in general, adding that UCLA made a successful pivot to telemedicine during the pandemic.

“You can set up a lot of good care through video visits,” Dr. Mills said, as long as the system is ethical.

Dr. Halpern and Dr. Mills reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.

I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs. Amanda Zink, Lauren Taylor, and a couple of others wrote a very interesting piece, which I think has significance and importance for all those doing clinical care in American health care today.

As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.

What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?

What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?

One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.

That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?

I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.

We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?

It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.

It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.

My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.

It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.

Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.

That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
 

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.

I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs. Amanda Zink, Lauren Taylor, and a couple of others wrote a very interesting piece, which I think has significance and importance for all those doing clinical care in American health care today.

As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.

What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?

What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?

One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.

That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?

I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.

We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?

It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.

It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.

My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.

It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.

Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.

That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
 

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University.

I want to talk about a paper that my colleagues in my division just published in Health Affairs. Amanda Zink, Lauren Taylor, and a couple of others wrote a very interesting piece, which I think has significance and importance for all those doing clinical care in American health care today.

As they pointed out, there’s a large amount of literature about what makes patients trust their doctor. There are many studies that show that, although patients sometimes have become more critical of the medical profession, in general they still try to trust their individual physician. Nurses remain in fairly high esteem among those who are getting hospital care.

What isn’t studied, as this paper properly points out, is, what can the doctor and the nurse do to trust the patient? How can that be assessed? Isn’t that just as important as saying that patients have to trust their doctors to do and comply with what they’re told?

What if doctors are afraid of violence? What if doctors are fearful that they can’t trust patients to listen, pay attention, or do what they’re being told? What if they think that patients are coming in with all kinds of disinformation, false information, or things they pick up on the Internet, so that even though you try your best to get across accurate and complete information about what to do about infectious diseases, taking care of a kid with strep throat, or whatever it might be, you’re thinking, Can I trust this patient to do what it is that I want them to do?

One particular problem that’s causing distrust is that more and more patients are showing stress and dependence on drugs and alcohol. That doesn’t make them less trustworthy per se, but it means they can’t regulate their own behavior as well.

That obviously has to be something that the physician or the nurse is thinking about. Is this person going to be able to contain anger? Is this person going to be able to handle bad news? Is this person going to deal with me when I tell them that some of the things they believe to be true about what’s good for their health care are false?

I think we have to really start to push administrators and people in positions of power to teach doctors and nurses how to defuse situations and how to make people more comfortable when they come in and the doctor suspects that they might be under the influence, impaired, or angry because of things they’ve seen on social media, whatever those might be – including concerns about racism, bigotry, and bias, which some patients are bringing into the clinic and the hospital setting.

We need more training. We’ve got to address this as a serious issue. What can we do to defuse situations where the doctor or the nurse rightly thinks that they can’t control or they can’t trust what the patient is thinking or how the patient might behave?

It’s also the case that I think we need more backup and quick access to security so that people feel safe and comfortable in providing care. We have to make sure that if you need someone to restrain a patient or to get somebody out of a situation, that they can get there quickly and respond rapidly, and that they know what to do to deescalate a situation.

It’s sad to say, but security in today’s health care world has to be something that we really test and check – not because we’re worried, as many places are, about a shooter entering the premises, which is its own bit of concern – but I’m just talking about when the doctor or the nurse says that this patient might be acting up, could get violent, or is someone I can’t trust.

My coauthors are basically saying that it’s not a one-way street. Yes, we have to figure out ways to make sure that our patients can trust what we say. Trust is absolutely the lubricant that makes health care flow. If patients don’t trust their doctors, they’re not going to do what they say. They’re not going to get their prescriptions filled. They’re not going to be compliant. They’re not going to try to lose weight or control their diabetes.

It also goes the other way. The doctor or the nurse has to trust the patient. They have to believe that they’re safe. They have to believe that the patient is capable of controlling themselves. They have to believe that the patient is capable of listening and hearing what they’re saying, and that they’re competent to follow up on instructions, including to come back if that’s what’s required.

Everybody has to feel secure in the environment in which they’re working. Security, sadly, has to be a priority if we’re going to have a health care workforce that really feels safe and comfortable dealing with a patient population that is increasingly aggressive and perhaps not as trustworthy.

That’s not news I like to read when my colleagues write it up, but it’s important and we have to take it seriously.
 

Dr. Caplan disclosed that he has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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