Clinical Endocrinology News

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Testosterone replacement therapy in the treatment of hypogonadism showed no benefit in slowing the progression of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to previous evidence that suggested potential improvements in insulin sensitivity and metabolism.

“The findings of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy alone should not be used as a therapeutic intervention to prevent or treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” reported the authors of research published this month in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The suggestion that testosterone replacement could prevent or slow diabetes stems from numerous studies linking testosterone deficiency to a host of adverse effects that include increases in insulin resistance and an increased risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.

Furthermore, one recent uncontrolled study showed a lower rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes in testosterone-treated vs untreated men with hypogonadism.

But with no known randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of testosterone on diabetes in the absence of a concurrent lifestyle intervention, Shalender Bhasin, MB, of the Research Program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues conducted a substudy of the randomized TRAVERSE trial, which was conducted at 316 sites in the United States.

“We hypothesized that testosterone replacement therapy for men with hypogonadism and prediabetes would be associated with a significantly lower rate of progression to diabetes,” they wrote.

In the study, named the TRAVERSE Diabetes Study, 5204 participants aged between 40 and 85 years with hypogonadism as well as prediabetes (n = 1175) or diabetes (n = 3880) were randomized 1:1 to receive treatment either with 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The participants had a mean age of 63.2 years, and the mean A1c among those with prediabetes was 5.8%.

For the primary outcome, the risk for progression to diabetes did not differ significantly between the testosterone-treated and placebo groups at 6 months (0.7% vs 1.4%), 12 months (7.8% vs 10.7%), 24 months (10.1% vs 14.6%), 36 months (12.8% vs 15.8%), or 48 months (13.4% vs 15.7%; omnibus test P = .49).

There were also no significant differences in terms of glycemic remission and the changes in glucose and A1c levels between the testosterone- and placebo-treated men with prediabetes or diabetes, consistent with findings from previous smaller trials.

The authors pointed out that the participants in the TRAVERSE trial had mild to moderate testosterone deficiency, and “it is possible that greater improvements in insulin sensitivity may be observed in men with severe testosterone deficiency.”

However, they noted that most men with hypogonadism who are treated with testosterone replacement therapy have only mild testosterone deficiency.

The parent TRAVERSE study did show testosterone replacement therapy to be associated with higher incidences of venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury; however, no additional between-group differences were observed based on diabetes or prediabetes status.

“The findings of this study do not support the use of testosterone replacement therapy alone to prevent or to treat diabetes in men with hypogonadism,” the authors concluded.
 

Study ‘Overcomes Limitations of Prior Studies’

In an editorial published concurrently with the study, Lona Mody, MD, of the Division of Geriatric and Palliative Care Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, and colleagues underscored that “the results of this study suggest that testosterone replacement therapy will not benefit glycemic control in men without hypogonadism despite the inappropriately high rates of use in this group.”

Further commenting, Dr. Mody elaborated on the high rates of use, noting that data have shown androgen use among men over 40 years increased more than threefold from 0.81% in 2001 to 2.91% in 2011.

“Based on sales data, testosterone prescribing has increased 100-fold from $18 million in the late 1980s to $1.8 billion over three decades,” Dr. Mody said.

She noted that while some previous research has shown a similar lack of benefits, “the current study overcomes some limitations of prior studies.”

Ultimately, the evidence indicated that “the only major indication for testosterone replacement therapy remains to treat bothersome symptoms of hypogonadism,” Dr. Mody said. “It does not appear to have metabolic benefits.”

This trial was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support provided by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with lactose intolerance are usually advised to avoid milk. However, many still consume dairy products despite experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms. Surprisingly, this "unreasonable" strategy may have the benefit of reducing the risk for type 2 diabetes, as shown in a recent American study.

“At first glance, the statement of the study seems counterintuitive,” said Robert Wagner, MD, head of the Clinical Studies Center at the German Diabetes Center-Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. “However, lactose intolerance has different manifestations.” Less severely affected individuals often consume milk and tolerate discomfort such as bloating or abdominal pain. “It is precisely these individuals that the study clearly shows have a lower incidence of diabetes associated with milk consumption,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Milk’s Heterogeneous Effect

The effect of milk consumption on diabetes, among other factors, has been repeatedly studied in nutritional studies, with sometimes heterogeneous results in different countries. The reason for this is presumed to be that in Asia, most people — 60%-100% — are lactose intolerant, whereas in Europe, only as much as 40% of the population has lactose intolerance.

The authors, led by Kai Luo, PhD, research fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, did not mention lactose tolerance and intolerance in their paper in Nature Metabolism. Instead, they divided the study population into lactase-persistent and non-lactase-persistent participants.

“Not being lactase-persistent does not necessarily exclude the ability to consume a certain amount of lactose,” said Lonneke Janssen Duijghuijsen, PhD, a nutrition scientist at Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. “Studies have shown that many individuals who lack lactase can still consume up to 12 g of lactose per day — equivalent to the amount in a large glass of milk — without experiencing intolerance symptoms.”
 

Gut Microbiome and Metabolites

Dr. Luo and his colleagues analyzed data from 12,653 participants in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, an ongoing prospective cohort study involving adults with Hispanic backgrounds. It collects detailed information on nutrition and the occurrence of diseases.

The authors examined whether the study participants were lactase-persistent or non-lactase-persistent and how frequently they consumed milk. They also analyzed the gut microbiome and various metabolites in the blood over a median follow-up period of 6 years.

The data analysis showed that higher milk consumption in non-lactase-persistent participants — but not in lactase-persistent participants — is associated with about a 30% reduced risk for type 2 diabetes when socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral factors are accounted for. Comparable results were obtained by Dr. Luo and his colleagues with data from the UK Biobank, which served as validation.

A higher milk consumption was associated not only with a lower diabetes risk in non-lactase-persistent individuals but also with a lower body mass index. “This could be one of the factors behind the diabetes protection,” said Dr. Wagner. “However, no formal mediation analyses were conducted in the study.”

Dr. Luo’s team primarily attributed the cause of the observed association between milk consumption and diabetes risk to the gut. Increased milk intake was also associated with changes in the gut microbiome. For example, there was an enrichment of Bifidobacterium, while Prevotella decreased. Changes were also observed in the circulating metabolites in the blood, such as an increase in indole-3-propionate and a decrease in branched-chain amino acids.

These metabolites, speculated the authors, could be more intensely produced by milk-associated bacteria and might be causally related to the association between milk consumption and reduced risk for type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals. “The authors have not been able to provide precise evidence of these mediators, but one possible mediator of these effects could be short-chain fatty acids, which can directly or indirectly influence appetite, insulin action, or liver fat beneficially,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Bacteria in the Colon

For Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen, the conclusion that milk consumption can influence the composition of the microbiome and thus the metabolic profile, especially in individuals without lactase persistence, is plausible.

“Individuals with lactase persistence efficiently digest lactose and absorb the resulting galactose and glucose molecules in the small intestine. In contrast, in non-lactase-persistent individuals, lactase is not expressed in the brush border of the small intestine. As a result, lactose remains undigested in the colon and can serve as an energy source for gut bacteria. This can influence the composition of the microbiome, which in turn can alter the concentration of circulating metabolites,” she said.

Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen has investigated the effect of lactose intake on the microbiome. In a recently published study, she also showed that increasing lactose intake by non-lactase-persistent individuals leads to changes in the microbiome, including an increase in Bifidobacteria.

“In line with the current study, we also found a significant increase in fecal beta-galactosidase activity. Given the close relationship between the composition of the gut microbiome and the metabolite profile, it is likely that changes in one can affect the other,” said Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen.
 

Nutritional Recommendations

The nutrition scientist warned against concluding that milk consumption can protect against type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals, however. “The study suggests a statistical association between milk consumption, certain metabolites, and the frequency of type 2 diabetes. These associations do not provide definitive evidence of a causal relationship,” she said. Any dietary recommendations cannot be derived from the study; much more research is needed for that.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with lactose intolerance are usually advised to avoid milk. However, many still consume dairy products despite experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms. Surprisingly, this "unreasonable" strategy may have the benefit of reducing the risk for type 2 diabetes, as shown in a recent American study.

“At first glance, the statement of the study seems counterintuitive,” said Robert Wagner, MD, head of the Clinical Studies Center at the German Diabetes Center-Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. “However, lactose intolerance has different manifestations.” Less severely affected individuals often consume milk and tolerate discomfort such as bloating or abdominal pain. “It is precisely these individuals that the study clearly shows have a lower incidence of diabetes associated with milk consumption,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Milk’s Heterogeneous Effect

The effect of milk consumption on diabetes, among other factors, has been repeatedly studied in nutritional studies, with sometimes heterogeneous results in different countries. The reason for this is presumed to be that in Asia, most people — 60%-100% — are lactose intolerant, whereas in Europe, only as much as 40% of the population has lactose intolerance.

The authors, led by Kai Luo, PhD, research fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, did not mention lactose tolerance and intolerance in their paper in Nature Metabolism. Instead, they divided the study population into lactase-persistent and non-lactase-persistent participants.

“Not being lactase-persistent does not necessarily exclude the ability to consume a certain amount of lactose,” said Lonneke Janssen Duijghuijsen, PhD, a nutrition scientist at Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. “Studies have shown that many individuals who lack lactase can still consume up to 12 g of lactose per day — equivalent to the amount in a large glass of milk — without experiencing intolerance symptoms.”
 

Gut Microbiome and Metabolites

Dr. Luo and his colleagues analyzed data from 12,653 participants in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, an ongoing prospective cohort study involving adults with Hispanic backgrounds. It collects detailed information on nutrition and the occurrence of diseases.

The authors examined whether the study participants were lactase-persistent or non-lactase-persistent and how frequently they consumed milk. They also analyzed the gut microbiome and various metabolites in the blood over a median follow-up period of 6 years.

The data analysis showed that higher milk consumption in non-lactase-persistent participants — but not in lactase-persistent participants — is associated with about a 30% reduced risk for type 2 diabetes when socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral factors are accounted for. Comparable results were obtained by Dr. Luo and his colleagues with data from the UK Biobank, which served as validation.

A higher milk consumption was associated not only with a lower diabetes risk in non-lactase-persistent individuals but also with a lower body mass index. “This could be one of the factors behind the diabetes protection,” said Dr. Wagner. “However, no formal mediation analyses were conducted in the study.”

Dr. Luo’s team primarily attributed the cause of the observed association between milk consumption and diabetes risk to the gut. Increased milk intake was also associated with changes in the gut microbiome. For example, there was an enrichment of Bifidobacterium, while Prevotella decreased. Changes were also observed in the circulating metabolites in the blood, such as an increase in indole-3-propionate and a decrease in branched-chain amino acids.

These metabolites, speculated the authors, could be more intensely produced by milk-associated bacteria and might be causally related to the association between milk consumption and reduced risk for type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals. “The authors have not been able to provide precise evidence of these mediators, but one possible mediator of these effects could be short-chain fatty acids, which can directly or indirectly influence appetite, insulin action, or liver fat beneficially,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Bacteria in the Colon

For Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen, the conclusion that milk consumption can influence the composition of the microbiome and thus the metabolic profile, especially in individuals without lactase persistence, is plausible.

“Individuals with lactase persistence efficiently digest lactose and absorb the resulting galactose and glucose molecules in the small intestine. In contrast, in non-lactase-persistent individuals, lactase is not expressed in the brush border of the small intestine. As a result, lactose remains undigested in the colon and can serve as an energy source for gut bacteria. This can influence the composition of the microbiome, which in turn can alter the concentration of circulating metabolites,” she said.

Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen has investigated the effect of lactose intake on the microbiome. In a recently published study, she also showed that increasing lactose intake by non-lactase-persistent individuals leads to changes in the microbiome, including an increase in Bifidobacteria.

“In line with the current study, we also found a significant increase in fecal beta-galactosidase activity. Given the close relationship between the composition of the gut microbiome and the metabolite profile, it is likely that changes in one can affect the other,” said Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen.
 

Nutritional Recommendations

The nutrition scientist warned against concluding that milk consumption can protect against type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals, however. “The study suggests a statistical association between milk consumption, certain metabolites, and the frequency of type 2 diabetes. These associations do not provide definitive evidence of a causal relationship,” she said. Any dietary recommendations cannot be derived from the study; much more research is needed for that.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with lactose intolerance are usually advised to avoid milk. However, many still consume dairy products despite experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms. Surprisingly, this "unreasonable" strategy may have the benefit of reducing the risk for type 2 diabetes, as shown in a recent American study.

“At first glance, the statement of the study seems counterintuitive,” said Robert Wagner, MD, head of the Clinical Studies Center at the German Diabetes Center-Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. “However, lactose intolerance has different manifestations.” Less severely affected individuals often consume milk and tolerate discomfort such as bloating or abdominal pain. “It is precisely these individuals that the study clearly shows have a lower incidence of diabetes associated with milk consumption,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Milk’s Heterogeneous Effect

The effect of milk consumption on diabetes, among other factors, has been repeatedly studied in nutritional studies, with sometimes heterogeneous results in different countries. The reason for this is presumed to be that in Asia, most people — 60%-100% — are lactose intolerant, whereas in Europe, only as much as 40% of the population has lactose intolerance.

The authors, led by Kai Luo, PhD, research fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, did not mention lactose tolerance and intolerance in their paper in Nature Metabolism. Instead, they divided the study population into lactase-persistent and non-lactase-persistent participants.

“Not being lactase-persistent does not necessarily exclude the ability to consume a certain amount of lactose,” said Lonneke Janssen Duijghuijsen, PhD, a nutrition scientist at Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. “Studies have shown that many individuals who lack lactase can still consume up to 12 g of lactose per day — equivalent to the amount in a large glass of milk — without experiencing intolerance symptoms.”
 

Gut Microbiome and Metabolites

Dr. Luo and his colleagues analyzed data from 12,653 participants in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, an ongoing prospective cohort study involving adults with Hispanic backgrounds. It collects detailed information on nutrition and the occurrence of diseases.

The authors examined whether the study participants were lactase-persistent or non-lactase-persistent and how frequently they consumed milk. They also analyzed the gut microbiome and various metabolites in the blood over a median follow-up period of 6 years.

The data analysis showed that higher milk consumption in non-lactase-persistent participants — but not in lactase-persistent participants — is associated with about a 30% reduced risk for type 2 diabetes when socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral factors are accounted for. Comparable results were obtained by Dr. Luo and his colleagues with data from the UK Biobank, which served as validation.

A higher milk consumption was associated not only with a lower diabetes risk in non-lactase-persistent individuals but also with a lower body mass index. “This could be one of the factors behind the diabetes protection,” said Dr. Wagner. “However, no formal mediation analyses were conducted in the study.”

Dr. Luo’s team primarily attributed the cause of the observed association between milk consumption and diabetes risk to the gut. Increased milk intake was also associated with changes in the gut microbiome. For example, there was an enrichment of Bifidobacterium, while Prevotella decreased. Changes were also observed in the circulating metabolites in the blood, such as an increase in indole-3-propionate and a decrease in branched-chain amino acids.

These metabolites, speculated the authors, could be more intensely produced by milk-associated bacteria and might be causally related to the association between milk consumption and reduced risk for type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals. “The authors have not been able to provide precise evidence of these mediators, but one possible mediator of these effects could be short-chain fatty acids, which can directly or indirectly influence appetite, insulin action, or liver fat beneficially,” said Dr. Wagner.
 

Bacteria in the Colon

For Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen, the conclusion that milk consumption can influence the composition of the microbiome and thus the metabolic profile, especially in individuals without lactase persistence, is plausible.

“Individuals with lactase persistence efficiently digest lactose and absorb the resulting galactose and glucose molecules in the small intestine. In contrast, in non-lactase-persistent individuals, lactase is not expressed in the brush border of the small intestine. As a result, lactose remains undigested in the colon and can serve as an energy source for gut bacteria. This can influence the composition of the microbiome, which in turn can alter the concentration of circulating metabolites,” she said.

Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen has investigated the effect of lactose intake on the microbiome. In a recently published study, she also showed that increasing lactose intake by non-lactase-persistent individuals leads to changes in the microbiome, including an increase in Bifidobacteria.

“In line with the current study, we also found a significant increase in fecal beta-galactosidase activity. Given the close relationship between the composition of the gut microbiome and the metabolite profile, it is likely that changes in one can affect the other,” said Dr. Janssen Duijghuijsen.
 

Nutritional Recommendations

The nutrition scientist warned against concluding that milk consumption can protect against type 2 diabetes in non-lactase-persistent individuals, however. “The study suggests a statistical association between milk consumption, certain metabolites, and the frequency of type 2 diabetes. These associations do not provide definitive evidence of a causal relationship,” she said. Any dietary recommendations cannot be derived from the study; much more research is needed for that.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) at a younger age is associated with an increased cancer risk, while the risk drops for T2D diagnosed at age 75 and older.

METHODOLOGY:

• A T2D diagnosis at a younger age is associated with a greater risk for complications and comorbidities, such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, retinopathy, and dementia than that occurring at an older age.
• The study evaluated the association between the age at T2D diagnosis and subsequent risk for overall and 14 site-specific cancers in a Shanghai, China, cohort of 428,568 patients newly diagnosed with T2D (about half women) from 2011 to 2018.
• New cases of cancer from the T2D diagnosis to 2018 were identified through a tumor registry.
• Patients were categorized into six groups based on their age at T2D diagnosis: 20-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years.
• The incidence rates of overall and 14 site-specific cancers were compared between patients with T2D and the general Shanghai population (older than 20 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared to the general population, T2D increased the relative risk for all-cause cancer by 10% (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12).
• Compared with the general population, the overall cancer incidence risk (SIR) was higher among those diagnosed with T2D at a younger age:
• 20-54 years: 1.48 (95% CI, 1.41-1.54)
• 55-59 years: 1.30 (95% CI, 1.25-1.35)
• 60-64 years: 1.19 (95% CI, 1.15-1.23)
• 65-69 years: 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.20)
• 70-74 years: 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10)
• The overall cancer incidence risk in patients diagnosed with T2D at age ≥ 75 years was even lower than that in the general population (SIR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89).
• The risk (SIR) for most site-specific cancers (including respiratory, colorectal, stomach, liver, pancreatic, bladder, central nervous system, kidney, and gallbladder cancers and lymphoma) decreased with increasing age at T2D diagnosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the carcinogenicity of T2D differs markedly by age at diagnosis and highlights the necessity of stratifying patients according to diagnosis age in management, screening, and preventative strategies,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yanyun Li, Division of Chronic Non-Communicable Disease and Injury, Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking history, alcohol consumption, and physical activity were available for nearly 60% of patients with T2D. The findings might only apply to patients with T2D who survive longer than the average and are therefore less applicable to the general population with diabetes. Patients with young-onset T2D had not reached the age where cancers are more prevalent despite as many as 8 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Foundation of National Facility for Translational Medicine, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, and Three-Year Action Plan of Shanghai Public Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) at a younger age is associated with an increased cancer risk, while the risk drops for T2D diagnosed at age 75 and older.

METHODOLOGY:

• A T2D diagnosis at a younger age is associated with a greater risk for complications and comorbidities, such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, retinopathy, and dementia than that occurring at an older age.
• The study evaluated the association between the age at T2D diagnosis and subsequent risk for overall and 14 site-specific cancers in a Shanghai, China, cohort of 428,568 patients newly diagnosed with T2D (about half women) from 2011 to 2018.
• New cases of cancer from the T2D diagnosis to 2018 were identified through a tumor registry.
• Patients were categorized into six groups based on their age at T2D diagnosis: 20-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years.
• The incidence rates of overall and 14 site-specific cancers were compared between patients with T2D and the general Shanghai population (older than 20 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared to the general population, T2D increased the relative risk for all-cause cancer by 10% (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12).
• Compared with the general population, the overall cancer incidence risk (SIR) was higher among those diagnosed with T2D at a younger age:
• 20-54 years: 1.48 (95% CI, 1.41-1.54)
• 55-59 years: 1.30 (95% CI, 1.25-1.35)
• 60-64 years: 1.19 (95% CI, 1.15-1.23)
• 65-69 years: 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.20)
• 70-74 years: 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10)
• The overall cancer incidence risk in patients diagnosed with T2D at age ≥ 75 years was even lower than that in the general population (SIR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89).
• The risk (SIR) for most site-specific cancers (including respiratory, colorectal, stomach, liver, pancreatic, bladder, central nervous system, kidney, and gallbladder cancers and lymphoma) decreased with increasing age at T2D diagnosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the carcinogenicity of T2D differs markedly by age at diagnosis and highlights the necessity of stratifying patients according to diagnosis age in management, screening, and preventative strategies,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yanyun Li, Division of Chronic Non-Communicable Disease and Injury, Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking history, alcohol consumption, and physical activity were available for nearly 60% of patients with T2D. The findings might only apply to patients with T2D who survive longer than the average and are therefore less applicable to the general population with diabetes. Patients with young-onset T2D had not reached the age where cancers are more prevalent despite as many as 8 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Foundation of National Facility for Translational Medicine, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, and Three-Year Action Plan of Shanghai Public Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) at a younger age is associated with an increased cancer risk, while the risk drops for T2D diagnosed at age 75 and older.

METHODOLOGY:

• A T2D diagnosis at a younger age is associated with a greater risk for complications and comorbidities, such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, retinopathy, and dementia than that occurring at an older age.
• The study evaluated the association between the age at T2D diagnosis and subsequent risk for overall and 14 site-specific cancers in a Shanghai, China, cohort of 428,568 patients newly diagnosed with T2D (about half women) from 2011 to 2018.
• New cases of cancer from the T2D diagnosis to 2018 were identified through a tumor registry.
• Patients were categorized into six groups based on their age at T2D diagnosis: 20-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years.
• The incidence rates of overall and 14 site-specific cancers were compared between patients with T2D and the general Shanghai population (older than 20 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared to the general population, T2D increased the relative risk for all-cause cancer by 10% (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12).
• Compared with the general population, the overall cancer incidence risk (SIR) was higher among those diagnosed with T2D at a younger age:
• 20-54 years: 1.48 (95% CI, 1.41-1.54)
• 55-59 years: 1.30 (95% CI, 1.25-1.35)
• 60-64 years: 1.19 (95% CI, 1.15-1.23)
• 65-69 years: 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.20)
• 70-74 years: 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10)
• The overall cancer incidence risk in patients diagnosed with T2D at age ≥ 75 years was even lower than that in the general population (SIR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89).
• The risk (SIR) for most site-specific cancers (including respiratory, colorectal, stomach, liver, pancreatic, bladder, central nervous system, kidney, and gallbladder cancers and lymphoma) decreased with increasing age at T2D diagnosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the carcinogenicity of T2D differs markedly by age at diagnosis and highlights the necessity of stratifying patients according to diagnosis age in management, screening, and preventative strategies,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yanyun Li, Division of Chronic Non-Communicable Disease and Injury, Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shanghai, China, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking history, alcohol consumption, and physical activity were available for nearly 60% of patients with T2D. The findings might only apply to patients with T2D who survive longer than the average and are therefore less applicable to the general population with diabetes. Patients with young-onset T2D had not reached the age where cancers are more prevalent despite as many as 8 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Foundation of National Facility for Translational Medicine, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Municipal Health Commission, and Three-Year Action Plan of Shanghai Public Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels show a positive association with prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia in Chinese adults, but only up to a certain threshold.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined the correlation between HDL-C levels and the reversion of people with prediabetes to normoglycemia in a secondary analysis of data from a population-based cohort study.
• The analysis included 15,420 Chinese patients with prediabetes who underwent health screening between 2010 and 2016 (mean age, 51 ± 13 years; 5414 (35%) women).
• The outcome measure, reversion to normoglycemia, was determined by no self-reported diabetic event and fasting plasma glucose < 5.6 mmol/L at follow-up.
• They categorized the adults into four groups on the basis of HDL-C quartiles.
• They used multiple statistical models to investigate the association between HDL-C levels and reversion from prediabetes, assess the linearity of the association, and account for independent variables and confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of nearly 3 years, 6627 (43%) of patients with prediabetes had a reversion to normoglycemia.
• The groups with higher HDL-C levels had a higher likelihood of prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; P < .001).
• They found a nonlinear association and threshold effect: The probability of reversal from prediabetes to normoglycemia stabilized rather than continued to increase at an inflection point (1.54 mmol/L in men, 1.62 mmol/L in women).
• A significant positive correlation with reversal to normoglycemia was observed below the HDL-C threshold (men: HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.37-3.26; women: HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.80-2.73).

IN PRACTICE:

“Keeping HDL-C levels near the inflection point in patients with prediabetes may greatly increase the likelihood of reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with lead author Zihe Mo, Department of Physical Examination, Dongguan Tungwah Hospital, Dongguan, China, was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals of Chinese descent, necessitating more studies into the HDL-C and normoglycemia relationship across diverse genetic backgrounds. The study relied solely on fasting plasma glucose measurements and was unable to capture the entirety of prediabetes complexity. As a secondary analysis of previously published data, the study faces limitations in managing unmeasured variables not initially included in the dataset. The observational study cannot determine a causal relationship between HDL-C and reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Funding of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels show a positive association with prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia in Chinese adults, but only up to a certain threshold.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined the correlation between HDL-C levels and the reversion of people with prediabetes to normoglycemia in a secondary analysis of data from a population-based cohort study.
• The analysis included 15,420 Chinese patients with prediabetes who underwent health screening between 2010 and 2016 (mean age, 51 ± 13 years; 5414 (35%) women).
• The outcome measure, reversion to normoglycemia, was determined by no self-reported diabetic event and fasting plasma glucose < 5.6 mmol/L at follow-up.
• They categorized the adults into four groups on the basis of HDL-C quartiles.
• They used multiple statistical models to investigate the association between HDL-C levels and reversion from prediabetes, assess the linearity of the association, and account for independent variables and confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of nearly 3 years, 6627 (43%) of patients with prediabetes had a reversion to normoglycemia.
• The groups with higher HDL-C levels had a higher likelihood of prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; P < .001).
• They found a nonlinear association and threshold effect: The probability of reversal from prediabetes to normoglycemia stabilized rather than continued to increase at an inflection point (1.54 mmol/L in men, 1.62 mmol/L in women).
• A significant positive correlation with reversal to normoglycemia was observed below the HDL-C threshold (men: HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.37-3.26; women: HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.80-2.73).

IN PRACTICE:

“Keeping HDL-C levels near the inflection point in patients with prediabetes may greatly increase the likelihood of reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with lead author Zihe Mo, Department of Physical Examination, Dongguan Tungwah Hospital, Dongguan, China, was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals of Chinese descent, necessitating more studies into the HDL-C and normoglycemia relationship across diverse genetic backgrounds. The study relied solely on fasting plasma glucose measurements and was unable to capture the entirety of prediabetes complexity. As a secondary analysis of previously published data, the study faces limitations in managing unmeasured variables not initially included in the dataset. The observational study cannot determine a causal relationship between HDL-C and reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Funding of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels show a positive association with prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia in Chinese adults, but only up to a certain threshold.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers examined the correlation between HDL-C levels and the reversion of people with prediabetes to normoglycemia in a secondary analysis of data from a population-based cohort study.
• The analysis included 15,420 Chinese patients with prediabetes who underwent health screening between 2010 and 2016 (mean age, 51 ± 13 years; 5414 (35%) women).
• The outcome measure, reversion to normoglycemia, was determined by no self-reported diabetic event and fasting plasma glucose < 5.6 mmol/L at follow-up.
• They categorized the adults into four groups on the basis of HDL-C quartiles.
• They used multiple statistical models to investigate the association between HDL-C levels and reversion from prediabetes, assess the linearity of the association, and account for independent variables and confounding factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of nearly 3 years, 6627 (43%) of patients with prediabetes had a reversion to normoglycemia.
• The groups with higher HDL-C levels had a higher likelihood of prediabetes reversal to normoglycemia (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; P < .001).
• They found a nonlinear association and threshold effect: The probability of reversal from prediabetes to normoglycemia stabilized rather than continued to increase at an inflection point (1.54 mmol/L in men, 1.62 mmol/L in women).
• A significant positive correlation with reversal to normoglycemia was observed below the HDL-C threshold (men: HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.37-3.26; women: HR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.80-2.73).

IN PRACTICE:

“Keeping HDL-C levels near the inflection point in patients with prediabetes may greatly increase the likelihood of reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with lead author Zihe Mo, Department of Physical Examination, Dongguan Tungwah Hospital, Dongguan, China, was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals of Chinese descent, necessitating more studies into the HDL-C and normoglycemia relationship across diverse genetic backgrounds. The study relied solely on fasting plasma glucose measurements and was unable to capture the entirety of prediabetes complexity. As a secondary analysis of previously published data, the study faces limitations in managing unmeasured variables not initially included in the dataset. The observational study cannot determine a causal relationship between HDL-C and reversion from prediabetes to normoglycemia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Natural Science Funding of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.

As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.

That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.

1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.

2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.

3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.

4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.

5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.

6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.

7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.

8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.

9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.

To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.

Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.

Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.

As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.

That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.

1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.

2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.

3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.

4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.

5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.

6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.

7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.

8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.

9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.

To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.

Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.

Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The blockbuster drugs of the century have arrived: glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These drugs were developed to control blood sugar but have gained immense popularity for weight loss. Patients are clamoring for the drugs, and physicians are inundated with patient inquiries.

As doctors in primary care and other specialties are discovering, the GLP-1 RA drugs add another layer of complexity to the long-term management of a chronic disease. Managing diabetes and obesity requires a multidisciplinary team and a multispecialty treatment approach.

That’s why it’s more important than ever to know when and why to refer patients to an endocrinologist, who can offer unparalleled expertise as part of a multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Here are 10 reasons to refer your patients with diabetes to an endocrinologist.

1. To help make an optimal medication choice. Endocrinologists navigate diabetes management by considering individualized glycemic, cardiorenal, and weight goals as per guidelines, incorporating knowledge of medication side effects, simplifying regimens for adherence, and addressing practical factors like access and cost. Optimal medication selection is crucial, as a recent study found that nearly two thirds of patients altered their treatment by discontinuing their medication, switching their medication, or changing the dose of their medication within 12 months. Whether diabetes is controlled or uncontrolled, patients should consult an endocrinologist due to the potential complexity of cases, including late autoimmune onset of diabetes; medication-induced diabetes; and factors such as age, fragility, and chronic illnesses.

2. To facilitate medication approvals, alternatives, and authorizations. Attaining medication approval for patients entails a nuanced understanding and resources. Through experience and careful consideration, endocrinologists develop insights into potential barriers, especially in cases where approval for specific medications necessitates prior failures with multiple GLP-1 RAs or antihyperglycemic agents. This expertise positions them to advocate effectively for alternative options, often involving the meticulous process of prior authorizations. Certain endocrinology practices may augment this endeavor by offering dedicated resources, such as a specialized prior authorization team.

3. To deal with diabetes complications. Endocrinologists can help address emerging issues in GLP-1 RA drugs such as retinopathy, gastroparesis, and mental health effects. They can also help manage coexisting conditions, such as addressing thyroid nodules before considering the use of GLP-1 RAs. Recognizing the interconnected nature of diabetes and its influence on diverse body systems, endocrinologists ensure a thorough and integrated management strategy for their patients.

4. To titrate other glucose-lowering agents. Patients with diabetes are often on combination therapy. Endocrinologists adeptly adjust and titrate these treatments to optimize glucose control while minimizing side effects like hypoglycemia. Beyond insulin, their expertise encompasses various glucose-lowering agents. Notably, patients who use GLP-1 RAs in combination with medications such as insulin secretagogues (eg, sulfonylurea) and insulin face an elevated risk for hypoglycemia, including severe cases, necessitating careful titration to mitigate these effects.

5. To integrate advances in diabetes technology. Endocrinologists stay abreast of technological advancements in diabetes care, incorporating innovations in monitoring and treatment strategies such as continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps. This ensures that patients benefit from the latest technologies for more precise management of their condition.

6. To ensure a comprehensive care team. Endocrinologists engage in collaborative efforts with a multidisciplinary team composed of professionals like nurses, diabetes educators, and nutritionists. These experts may be situated within endocrinology offices or accessible through a well-established referral network. Together, the team delivers thorough counseling on medication use and effectively addresses essential lifestyle factors, ensuring a comprehensive approach to diabetes management.

7. To counsel on side effects and management. Ensuring adherence and persistence with medication therapy poses considerable challenges. One study noted discontinuation rates for non-insulin diabetes medications of about 38%, with a higher 50% rate for GLP-1 RA drugs. The study didn›t provide specific reasons for discontinuation, but discontinuation was lower when medications were prescribed by an endocrinologist. Endocrinologists can provide valuable guidance on potential medication side effects and their management. This proactive approach not only fosters patient understanding but also empowers individuals to promptly address side effects, significantly enhancing treatment adherence and overall effectiveness.

8. To work around drug shortages. Given their frequent involvement in prescribing and obtaining medications for patients, endocrinologists adeptly utilize community relationships to navigate medication shortages. Their awareness of drug availability provides patients with a strategic advantage in overcoming supply challenges.

9. To determine dosing equivalents. In situations where supply-chain shortages persist, a thorough understanding of alternative options and dosing equivalents becomes paramount for ensuring uninterrupted care.

To provide follow-up. Endocrinologists prioritize regular follow-ups, providing patients with dedicated time slots for 10. ongoing monitoring and adjustments to their treatment plans. This commitment to follow-up care contributes to sustained, optimal outcomes in diabetes management.

Navigating the intricate healthcare landscape requires a delicate balance between primary care proficiency and specialist expertise, with endocrinologists playing a pivotal role in diabetes management. Our collaborative strength lies in acknowledging challenges and resource limitations, especially a physician’s familiarity with the latest diabetes medications.

Dr. Jaisinghani has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Socioeconomic factors and insurance type greatly influence the odds of a person with obesity receiving a prescription for a weight loss medication and subsequently filling it, new research finds.

The results come from a retrospective study of Florida and Ohio electronic health records of more than 50,000 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 30 kg/m² who sought care for obesity from 2015 through June 2023. Only 8.0% overall had received prescriptions for weight loss medications and just 4.4% had filled them. Factors associated with lower likelihood of both prescription receipt and fills included male sex, Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid, traditional Medicare, and Medicare Advantage insurance types.

The fill rate increased to 26% in 2022-2023 after the newer glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists became available, but the identified disparities persisted throughout, study author Hamlet Gasoyan, PhD, told this news organization. “Things are changing, but this study provides a very good picture of who’s getting prescriptions and the implications for policy decisions.”

Dr. Gasoyan, of the Center for Value-Based Care Research at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, noted that Medicare doesn’t currently cover antiobesity medications nor do most Medicaid programs (neither Florida’s nor Ohio’s do), but there is now at least one bill in Congress to change that. “Medicare and other government payers are currently facing important policy decisions about antiobesity medication coverage. I think they should consider how their policies could impact existing inequalities in obesity care.”

Another noteworthy finding, Dr. Gasoyan said, is that “despite all the recent hype, the real data shows these medications are underutilized and probably will remain so.”

Asked to comment, David B. Sarwer, PhD, Director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization, “there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm in the obesity treatment community that these newer medications have the potential to be game-changers. I think what this study shows us, as does other work from this group and others, is that we still have some significant issues around access to care and long-term engagement with these medications that we need to address for them to realize their full potential.” 

Dr. Sarwer acknowledged, as did Dr. Gasoyan, that the study timing is a limitation and more data will need to be collected prospectively with the new incretin drugs. As of now, though, “These medications are very expensive. While there are some insurance plans that are offering payment for them, many are not. Until we wrestle that to the ground there are always going to be questions about whether these medications are getting to the people who need them the most. I think one of the highlights of this paper is it reminds us that obesity is a disease that differentially impacts persons from underserved groups.”

Moreover, Dr. Sarwer noted, “In this day and age, many physicians don’t have a lot of time to spend with individual patients. Conversations around weight can be challenging and often very emotional for patients. I’m not sure we’ve trained physicians how to have productive, targeted conversations that lead to effective use of a weight-loss intervention. Maybe in some ways that’s what we’re seeing here.” 
 

Disparities Seen in Both Prescriptions and Fills

The 50,678 study subjects all not only met BMI criteria (≥ 30 kg/m2) but also attended at least one weight management program (n = 48,711) and/or received a weight-loss medication prescription (n = 4047). “We know BMI isn’t a perfect measure of obesity, so we specifically looked at where the patient or provider had identified excess weight as an issue and wanted to do something about it…You would expect that in this group the use of antiobesity medications would be high, but it wasn’t, unfortunately,” Dr. Gasoyan commented. 

Participants had a mean BMI of 38 kg/m2 and mean age 50 years. Slightly more than half (54%) were women, 66% were White individuals, 24% Black individuals, and 5.3% Hispanic individuals. A majority (56%) had private insurance, and 41% had diabetes. Mean follow-up time was 4.7 years. 

The main measures were prescriptions for naltrexone-bupropion, orlistat, phentermine-topiramate, 3.0 mg liraglutide, 2.4 mg semaglutide, and a fill for one of those during the study follow-up. 

Overall, 8.0% had a new anti-obesity medication prescription, and of those, 55% had at least one documented fill of the prescription. Among the fills, 39% were for naltrexone-buproprion, 29% for phentermine-topiramate, 19% for semaglutide, 11% for liraglutide, and 1.2% for orlistat.

In the multivariable model, receipt of an antiobesity medication prescription was significantly less likely among Black patients (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68), Hispanic individuals (0.72), and those from other racial or ethnic backgrounds (0.70) than among White patients. Men had lower odds than women (0.38).

Compared with privately insured patients, significantly lower odds of receiving prescriptions were seen in those with Medicaid (0.44), traditional Medicare (0.35), Medicare Advantage (0.36), and self-paying (0.65) and other insurance types (0.53). Those in the highest quartile of economic disadvantage also had lower antiobesity medication prescription odds (0.81).

Also associated with lower prescription odds were younger age, higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score, presence of diabetes diagnosis, and a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure.

Factors associated with lower odds of filling antiobesity medication prescriptions included Hispanic ethnicity vs White ethnicity (0.51) but not Black race. Compared with private insurance, lower odds of filling the prescriptions were seen among those with Medicaid (0.41), traditional Medicare (0.38), and Medicare Advantage (0.37). 

Over the study period, compared with naltrexone-buproprion, phentermine-topiramate had higher odds of being filled (1.27), while liraglutide (0.61) and orlistat (0.11) had lower odds, and semaglutide didn’t differ significantly (0.90). 

Older age, female sex, and the presence of diabetes diagnosis were associated with higher odds of prescription fills, while deprivation quartile, history of myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity score were not significantly associated with medication fill. 

Dr. Gasoyan told this news organization, “This study is unique in that we were able to look at patterns of use and barriers at several stages…We just recently published another study where we found patients weren’t often taking these medications long-term. So, patients are facing challenges on receiving obesity pharmacotherapy at several stages. …Hopefully these data will highlight the issues and inform future decisions. We see clear areas where we could obviously do better.” 

Dr. Gasoyan had no disclosures. Dr. Sarwer received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and declared having consulting relationships with NovoNordisk and Twenty30 Health. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .