Clinical Endocrinology News

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

In the year since generative artificial intelligence (AI) software first began to emerge for use, the staggering pace and breadth of development has condensed years of growth and change into months and weeks. Among the settings where these tools may find the greatest straight-line relevance is private medical practice.

Last month’s column on the basics of AI sparked some interesting questions regarding the various generative algorithms and their usefulness to us in medicine. A multitude of generative AI products with potential medical applications are now available, with new ones appearing almost weekly. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

Last month, I discussed ChatGPT, the best-known AI algorithm, and some of its applications in clinical practice, such as generating website, video, and blog content. ChatGPT can also provide rapid and concise answers to general medical questions, like a search engine – but with more natural language processing and contextual understanding. Additionally, the algorithm can draft generic medical documents, including templates for after-visit summaries, postprocedure instructions, referrals, prior authorization appeal letters, and educational handouts.

Another useful feature of ChatGPT is its ability to provide accurate and conversational language translations, thus serving as an interpreter during clinic visits in situations where a human translator is not available. It also has potential uses in clinical research by finding resources, formulating hypotheses, drafting study protocols, and collecting large amounts of data in short periods of time. Other possibilities include survey administration, clinical trial recruitment, and automatic medication monitoring.

GPT-4, the latest version of ChatGPT, is reported to have greater problem-solving abilities and an even broader knowledge base. Among its claimed skills are the ability to find the latest literature in a given area, write a discharge summary for a patient following an uncomplicated surgery, and an image analysis feature to identify objects in photos. GPT-4 has been praised as having “the potential to help drive medical innovation, from aiding with patient discharge notes, summarizing recent clinical trials, providing information on ethical guidelines, and much more.”

Bard, an AI “chat bot” introduced by Google earlier this year, intends to leverage Google’s enormous database to compete with ChatGPT in providing answers to medical questions. Bard also hopes to play a pivotal role in expanding telemedicine and remote care via Google’s secure connections and access to patient records and medical history, and “facilitate seamless communication through appointment scheduling, messaging, and sharing medical images,” according to PackT, a website for IT professionals. The company claims that Bard’s integration of AI and machine learning capabilities will serve to elevate health care efficiency and patient outcomes, PackT says, and “the platform’s AI system quickly and accurately analyzes patient records, identifies patterns and trends, and aids medical professionals in developing effective treatment plans.”

Doximity has introduced an AI engine called DocsGPT, an encrypted, HIPAA-compliant writing assistant that, the company says, can draft any form of professional correspondence, including prior authorization letters, insurance appeals, patient support letters, and patient education materials. The service is available at no charge to all U.S. physicians and medical students through their Doximity accounts.

Microsoft has introduced several AI products. BioGPT is a language model specifically designed for health care. Compared with GPT models that are trained on more general text data, BioGPT is purported to have a deeper understanding of the language used in biomedical research and can generate more accurate and relevant outputs for biomedical tasks, such as drug discovery, disease classification, and clinical decision support. Fabric is another health care–specific data and analytics platform the company described in an announcement in May. It can combine data from sources such as electronic health records, images, lab systems, medical devices, and claims systems so hospitals and offices can standardize it and access it in the same place. Microsoft said the new tools will help eliminate the “time-consuming” process of searching through these sources one by one. Microsoft will also offer a new generative AI chatbot called the Azure Health Bot, which can pull information from a health organization’s own internal data as well as reputable external sources such as the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Several other AI products are available for clinicians. Tana served as an administrative aid and a clinical helper during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, answering frequently asked questions, facilitating appointment management, and gathering preliminary medical information prior to teleconsultations. Dougall GPT is another AI chatbot tailored for health care professionals. It provides clinicians with AI-tuned answers to their queries, augmented by links to relevant, up-to-date, authoritative resources. It also assists in drafting patient instructions, consultation summaries, speeches, and professional correspondence. Wang has created Clinical Camel, an open-source health care–focused chatbot that assembles medical data with a combination of user-shared conversations and synthetic conversations derived from curated clinical articles. The Chinese company Baidu has rolled out Ernie as a potential rival to ChatGPT. You get the idea.

Of course, the inherent drawbacks of AI, such as producing false or biased information, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, and presenting information that has since been proven inaccurate or out-of-date, must always be kept in mind. All AI algorithms have been criticized for giving wrong answers, as their datasets are generally culled from information published in 2021 or earlier. Several of them have been shown to fabricate information – a phenomenon labeled “artificial hallucinations” in one article. “The scientific community must be vigilant in verifying the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by AI tools,” wrote the authors of that paper. “Researchers should use AI as an aid rather than a replacement for critical thinking and fact-checking.”

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

New England Baptist Hospital has been grappling with a serious problem facing health care today: insurers demanding prior authorizations for services ordered by physicians. Meeting payers’ requirements eats up time, delays treatment, and can be a costly drain on doctors’ practices. 

To deal with this problem, the Boston orthopedic hospital has opted to automate submission of prior authorization requests on behalf of more than 100 mostly orthopedic surgeons on staff. 

After 5 years using this system, “we can say that automation definitely works,” said Lidiya Hadzhieva, director of patient access at the hospital. The software has reduced write-offs by 30% and staff costs by 25%. Prior authorization gets approved 3 days after scheduling, compared with 11 days previously, she said.

“This software not only saves staff time, but it can also more accurately predict when prior authorization is needed,” she added.

For practices deluged with required prior authorizations by insurers, automation is emerging as a way for practices to make the process less time-consuming and save money. However, the software can be costly and may not be adoptable to many practices, and many physicians are not even aware it exists.

So far, the software is mainly used at large organizations like hospital systems. But as word gets out and the software becomes easier to use, private practices and other smaller entities may join the automation trend.

There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization. The American Medical Association reports that physicians spend 16 hours per week on prior authorizations. In a recent AMA survey, more than 60% of physicians indicated that it’s difficult to know when prior authorization is needed. And 93% of physicians reported care delays while waiting for authorization, the AMA said.  

Experts estimate that 80% of prior authorization work could be automated, but most practices still use the phone or fax, even as numbers of prior authorizations continue to increase.
 

How it works

Automation software connects directly to the practice’s electronic health record (EHR). “When the doctor places an order in the EHR, the process starts automatically,” Ms. Hadzhieva said. “The doctor may not even notice it.” 

In addition to using an EHR connection, many software products can communicate with the payer through its portal or by fax or phone, while still automating other parts of the process.

The software’s first step is to decide whether prior authorization is needed. This requires having an updated list of the rules that each payer uses for prior authorization. Manually keeping track of payer rules is very time-consuming, but automation uses bots to visit each payer site to look for rules changes. One vendor, Infinitus, uses a voice-based bot called Eva that calls up each payer and speaks with a representative.

“Automatically updating payer rules is not a new technology,” said YiDing Yu, MD, chief product officer at Olive, the automation vendor for New England Baptist. “What is new in the last 5 years is extracting the information needed for the prior authorization out of the clinical notes.”

This is challenging because each doctor has different ways to describe each step of clinical work. To identify this shorthand, Dr. Yu said Olive uses natural language processing, which is a form of artificial intelligence that learns how each doctor describes things.

Dr. Yu asserts that Olive is actually better than a practice’s staff at digging out clinical information. She said staff without much clinical training may miss terms that the software can catch, and they don’t have the time to go back many months into the record to find valuable information. But automation can do that.

In some instances, however, the software may not be able to find the information, in which case it alerts staff through a prompt in the EHR and the information is retrieved manually, Dr. Yu said.

Next, the Olive software puts the information it found into the request form and sends it to the payer. After submission, the software constantly checks on the status of each request, again visiting payer sites with a bot.

At New England Baptist, the software is used mainly by physicians in fairly small private practices who are on staff. They are using the software on the hospital’s dime, but it only works inside the hospital, Ms. Hadzhieva said. For their work outside of the hospital, they would have to purchase the Olive software on their own, she said.
 

Automation hasn’t spread to practices yet

Despite the promising outcomes for products like Olive, automation software is still primarily used by large organizations. Vendors say very few private practices have bought it yet. “The technology works, but it is still in the early-adopter phase,” Dr. Yu said.

For one thing, the software can be expensive. Very few vendors reveal their prices, but Dr. Yu did so. She said Olive normally costs about $50,000 a year for even a small organization. She insisted, however, that the savings from avoiding just one denial each month for a hip surgery would justify the expense.

On the other hand, some automation software is free, such as the Surescripts product for prior authorization of prescriptions. But it is unclear whether Surescripts does as much as Olive. Vendors’ descriptions of their products tend to be vague.

Also, Surescripts and Olive have entirely separate functions. Dr. Yu said Olive is limited to procedures, so it benefits specialties like oncology, neurosurgery, colorectal surgery, vascular surgery, and cardiology. Olive does not cover prescriptions, because they operate on a different technology.

Dr. Yu said another hurdle for adopting the software is the kind of EHR systems that doctors use. At this point, only a few EHR systems – such as Epic, Cerner, and Athena – are compatible with Olive. Large organizations tend to use Epic and Cerner, while many practices often use Athena or a variety of other systems, she said.

Despite stunted demand, there is no shortage of companies offering automation software for medical (that is, non-prescription) prior authorization. One compilation lists 25 such vendors, including companies like Myndshft, Rhyme, Infinitus, Infinx, and Waystar. As with any start-up technology, companies occasionally buy each other out.

In addition to issues like cost, specialty, and EHR compatibility, another hurdle is that few doctors even know the technology exists. Vendors say marketing focuses on larger provider organizations, not smaller practices.

Even many tech-savvy doctors, like Adam Bruggeman, MD, an orthopedist and CEO of Texas Spine Care Center in San Antonio, say they know little about the technology. “There is definitely a need to automate prior authorization,” he said. “But I don’t know of any colleagues who use it.” He has only just begun to explore vendors, he said.

Many medical practice consultants also have not yet explored the technology. “Automation makes a lot of sense, because there are a lot of repetitive tasks in prior authorization,” said Jill Arena, CEO of Portland, Ore.–based Health e Practices. “But I haven’t looked into it yet, and none of my clients has even asked about it.”

“I could see how it could be an easier sell for large organizations,” she added. “They have an IT person and a CFO who can explore the issue. Smaller practices usually don’t have that kind of expertise.”
 

Where does automation go from here?

Until now, clinicians who want to fully automate prior authorizations would have to buy two products – one for medical procedures and one for prescriptions. This has to do with incompatible electronic transmission standards, which are used to digitize information, said Susan Lawson-Dawson, content marketing strategist for the vendor Myndshft Health.

Myndshft has long been selling automation software for medical prior authorizations, but now it is introducing a product for prescriptions, Ms. Lawson-Dawson said. She said Myndshft will then be the only vendor to automate both kinds of prior authorizations.

Ms. Lawson-Dawson said Myndshft has 685 customers to date and is looking for more business. Recently the company entered the Google Cloud Marketplace. Google Cloud customers can now direct their committed spend with Google to purchasing Myndshft, meaning they could get it at a discount.

Software like Olive and Myndshft can operate independently of payers, but a vendor called Rhyme depends on payers for its software to function, said Rhyme CEO Joe Anstine. He said more than 300 payers have agreed to install the Rhyme system, and Rhyme has signed up a number of large health systems to use the product. Initially, he said, clinicians paid for the service, but now Rhyme is beginning to find payers to foot the costs and to let clinicians use it for free, which would open Rhyme up to smaller practices.

EHR companies themselves are beginning to offer automation, too. Epic, for example, has created a tool for prior authorization as part of its Epic Payer Platform. Like Rhyme, it requires payer cooperation, because information goes back and forth between clinician and payer in what is called bi-directional exchange.

The Epic product is still in its pilot phase. Epic reported that several large health systems were using its product in conjunction with a specific payer – for instance, Mayo Clinic with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and Ochsner Health with Humana. According to Epic, the arrangement reduced Mayo’s denials due to additional documentation requests by 63% for professional billing.

Automating with just one payer still means the clinician has to deal with manual processes at other payers, but a large clinician could have sufficient volume with that one payer to make the arrangement useful.
 

Will payers automate prior authorization?

Ultimately, payers may take the automation business away from vendors, offering a free product to all clinicians. But don’t hold your breath. Payers first have to rebuild their electronic systems to accommodate an electronic connection with providers. Even then, some payers might hold back from automating, forcing practices to continue manually processing some prior authorizations.

Efforts are underway, however, to mandate payers to support prior authorization automation. For this to happen, payers would have to revamp their data so that it could be easily read by practices’ EHRs. This would mean adopting a specific interoperability standard called Health Level 7 Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR).

Toward this goal, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to require payers to adopt FHIR by January 2026. (CMS still has to finalize the rule.) Experts say the two-year ramp-up time is needed because it takes extensive work for payers to translate their data into FHIR.

The only payer so far to switch to FHIR for prior authorization is Regence in Washington state. In a pilot project, it has automated prior authorization with just one provider, MultiCare Connected Care, an accountable care organization (ACO), also in Washington state.

Anna Taylor, associate vice president of population health and value-based care at MultiCare, explained how the arrangement works. “Two separate entities are sharing one operational process,” she told this news organization. “That means they can have a digital conversation back and forth, so it is much easier to resolve prior authorization issues.” 

Unlike many vendor products, the Regence service is free. And while the vendors market only to large organizations, most doctors in the MultiCare arrangement are in independent practices. Ms. Taylor said these doctors have been “enthusiastic” about the arrangement.

The results of the pilot are impressive. Ms. Taylor said automation has resulted in a 233% productivity gain for MultiCare clinicians, and 89% of submissions to Regence get an immediate response.

There is a potential downside, however, to working directly with payers. A direct connection to clinicians allows payers to access the doctor’s clinical notes, which could make many doctors uneasy. But Ms. Taylor said Regence only has access to the “discrete data fields” on MultiCare’s EHR dashboard, not to the notes themselves.

The ultimate goal of the Regence-Multicare project is to include more payers and clinicians. Ms. Taylor said two of the 27 other payers that MultiCare works with are “highly interested,” but it would take a lot of work for them to get connected with practices and other clinicians. 

Ultimately, payers could offer automation and third-party vendors might then fade away. However, physicians may resist working directly with payers if the arrangement requires full access to their medical records.

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

You can’t argue with success, unless you are an insurance company faced with covering medications shown to improve obesity.

The ability of drugs originally designed for diabetes management to reduce body weight has spiked demand and taxed supplies, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which included semaglutide (both Wegovy and Ozempic) on its Drug Shortages List as of May 31, 2023.

Meanwhile, clinicians and patients report that insurance companies are pushing back against coverage of these medications that mimic glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) because of the costs. A recent study conducted by Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit management organization, showed that individuals who started GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and who were adherent to the treatment averaged a 59% increase in health care costs after 1 year; for those in a subgroup analysis who were treatment adherent, the increase in health care costs was 98%.

“Insurance coverage for obesity treatment is challenging, particularly regarding medications,” said Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness at George Washington University, Washington, in an interview. Employers must opt in for patients to have coverage for these medications; therefore, relatively few patients have had access at reasonable out-of-pocket costs, he said.

For example, the University of Texas stated on its website that its prescription drug plans will no longer cover drugs with the active ingredients semaglutide (Wegovy) or liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss as of Sept. 1, 2023. Both products are FDA-approved for weight management, whereas the equally popular Ozempic is currently approved only as a treatment for diabetes. The school’s website noted that the current price of the drugs, which cost the plan more than $5 million per month as of May 2023, outstrips the most expensive cancer agents.

The University of Texas also found that among its patients, the compliance rate for those who began Wegovy or Saxenda for weight loss was only 46%, which was not enough to justify continued coverage. The plan advised patients to approach their insurers directly.

Eventually, more information may prompt more support from insurance across a range of medications, Dr. Kahan noted. “Most insurers are wanting cost-effectiveness data in order to support their investments in broader coverage,” he said.

However, costs do vary with and without insurance; some medications are less expensive than others without significant differences in outcomes, so encourage patients to explore all the options and not just one brand, Dr. Kahan said.
 

Educate patients on plan details

Clinicians can’t guarantee coverage, but they can offer guidance to their patients, according to said Andrew Kraftson, MD, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in the care of people with obesity.

Unfortunately, some of the challenges to obtaining insurance coverage for weight-loss medications lie in the plan details because some insurers have a blanket prohibition against the use of weight-loss medications, he said.

If patients did not look for this particular aspect of coverage at the time of enrollment in their chosen plan, they may not have known about this exclusion, and they are disappointed to find that they are ineligible for weight-loss medications despite medical circumstances, Dr. Kraftson said in an interview.

If weight-loss medications are covered, prior authorization often is required, Dr. Kraftson added.

“Unfortunately, the requirements vary from insurer to insurer, and this can present challenges for the busy clinicians who may not have dedicated staff to assist with these authorizations. Sometimes, the requirements are exactingly particular, and denials can commonly occur,” he said.

Some insurers will cover weight-loss medications for an initial period then require a certain degree of weight loss before renewing the approval, Dr. Kraftson said.

“While this is reasonable, sometimes it is necessary to titrate a medication more slowly to help a patient get used to the medicine, so they may not reach the required weight loss in the time required by the insurer,” he said. “As such, the medical professional is ‘punished’ for trying to be safe and patient-sensitive, and the patient may lose coverage of the medicine.”

Clinicians can help patients increase their chances for insurance coverage by providing a patient instruction guide to walk them through the steps that allow the patient to make inquiries with their own insurer, Dr. Kraftson said.

This guide should instruct patients on how to read their prescription coverage card to correctly contact their insurer, along with a guide to medical coverage terminology.

Lauren Oshman, MD, also of the University of Michigan, heads a collaborative quality initiative in the state known as Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes (MCT2D). Dr. Oshman and her colleagues created a user-friendly list of terms to help patients understand their plans and better advocate for coverage (see below). The list was designed to guide patients with diabetes but applies to any medication.
 

Learn the lingo (common insurance terms and definitions)

• Deductible: Predetermined amount that must be paid annually before insurance pays for anything.
• Copayment: Set amount paid for a prescription.
• Coinsurance: Amount you pay after your deductible is met. Your insurance pays their portion. Coinsurance only applies to prescriptions and services covered under your health plan.
• Medication tier: Levels of insurance medication coverage; you play a smaller amount for a lower tier and a higher amount for a higher tier.
• Out-of-pocket max: Annual limit on what you pay before insurance covers 100% of covered services. Deductibles, copayment, and coinsurance all apply toward your out-of-pocket maximum.
• Prior authorization: Request made by your doctor to insurance company for coverage of a medication.
• Quantity limit: Limitation on the number of pills covered for a period of time.
• Step therapy: Medication you must have tried prior to approval of a nonpreferred medication, typically prior to trying a more expensive medication.

(Source: Learn the Lingo: A Guide to Common Insurance Terms and Definitions, courtesy of Lauren Oshman, MD, and MCT2D)

Also, make sure patients understand that they need to find out whether they have a deductible and if so, how much it is, Dr. Kraftson said.

Pros and cons of compounding

Compounded drugs are not approved by the FDA; however, that does not mean they are not available, and patients may pursue them as an option for weight-loss drugs.

In a statement issued on May 31, 2023, the FDA cited reports of adverse events associated with the use of compounded weight-loss drugs as a lower-cost alternative to the approved product. The FDA emphasized that the agency does not review compounded versions of weight-loss drugs for safety, efficacy, or quality.

Dr. Kraftson cited the lack of quality control, transparency, and safety data as reasons to discourage his patients from pursuing compounded medications.

“If a patient insists on pursuing it, then I review the position statement from the Obesity Medicine Association,” he said. The OMA statement recommends that anti-obesity medications undergo clinical trials and noted the lack of FDA oversight on these products. The OMA statement also advises compounded peptides to be “legally produced by companies whose identities are readily disclosed, and who have documented manufacturing processes compliant with oversight by applicable regulatory agencies.”
 

Tracking outcomes might boost coverage

Robust data on the long-term cost-effectiveness of weight-loss medications are lacking, although this is changing, Dr. Kraftson said. A 2022 study published last year in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that a 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide was cost-effective, compared with no treatment, diet and exercise, and other anti-obesity medications based on gains in quality of life.

“Regardless, insurers are not as motivated by long-term cost effectiveness,” Dr. Kraftson said. Insurers are accustomed to employee turnover and are more likely to be motivated by short-term costs and benefits, he said. “Obesity treatment provides some short-term benefit, but the majority of the benefit can be experienced when we look at the long-term horizon,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need better ways to account for the myriad benefits experienced by patients with successful weight control beyond what is currently measured as metrics of success, including better ways to qualify and quantify quality-of-life benefits,” Dr. Kraftson said.

Also, clinicians should address the stigma associated with obesity, Dr. Kraftson said.

“We would not see the spate of coverage restrictions if we were talking about heart disease or cancer; insurers can get away with this because obesity is held to a different standard and patients with obesity are used to being undertreated and mistreated by the medical community and society,” he said. “We need to better account for the true costs of excess weight/obesity beyond what is traditionally accepted. This would help make the case for the cost-effective nature of treatment.”

Dr. Kraftson and Dr. Oshman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kahan had no financial conflicts and serves on the Medscape Editorial Advisory Board.

You can’t argue with success, unless you are an insurance company faced with covering medications shown to improve obesity.

The ability of drugs originally designed for diabetes management to reduce body weight has spiked demand and taxed supplies, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which included semaglutide (both Wegovy and Ozempic) on its Drug Shortages List as of May 31, 2023.

Meanwhile, clinicians and patients report that insurance companies are pushing back against coverage of these medications that mimic glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) because of the costs. A recent study conducted by Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit management organization, showed that individuals who started GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and who were adherent to the treatment averaged a 59% increase in health care costs after 1 year; for those in a subgroup analysis who were treatment adherent, the increase in health care costs was 98%.

“Insurance coverage for obesity treatment is challenging, particularly regarding medications,” said Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness at George Washington University, Washington, in an interview. Employers must opt in for patients to have coverage for these medications; therefore, relatively few patients have had access at reasonable out-of-pocket costs, he said.

For example, the University of Texas stated on its website that its prescription drug plans will no longer cover drugs with the active ingredients semaglutide (Wegovy) or liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss as of Sept. 1, 2023. Both products are FDA-approved for weight management, whereas the equally popular Ozempic is currently approved only as a treatment for diabetes. The school’s website noted that the current price of the drugs, which cost the plan more than $5 million per month as of May 2023, outstrips the most expensive cancer agents.

The University of Texas also found that among its patients, the compliance rate for those who began Wegovy or Saxenda for weight loss was only 46%, which was not enough to justify continued coverage. The plan advised patients to approach their insurers directly.

Eventually, more information may prompt more support from insurance across a range of medications, Dr. Kahan noted. “Most insurers are wanting cost-effectiveness data in order to support their investments in broader coverage,” he said.

However, costs do vary with and without insurance; some medications are less expensive than others without significant differences in outcomes, so encourage patients to explore all the options and not just one brand, Dr. Kahan said.
 

Educate patients on plan details

Clinicians can’t guarantee coverage, but they can offer guidance to their patients, according to said Andrew Kraftson, MD, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in the care of people with obesity.

Unfortunately, some of the challenges to obtaining insurance coverage for weight-loss medications lie in the plan details because some insurers have a blanket prohibition against the use of weight-loss medications, he said.

If patients did not look for this particular aspect of coverage at the time of enrollment in their chosen plan, they may not have known about this exclusion, and they are disappointed to find that they are ineligible for weight-loss medications despite medical circumstances, Dr. Kraftson said in an interview.

If weight-loss medications are covered, prior authorization often is required, Dr. Kraftson added.

“Unfortunately, the requirements vary from insurer to insurer, and this can present challenges for the busy clinicians who may not have dedicated staff to assist with these authorizations. Sometimes, the requirements are exactingly particular, and denials can commonly occur,” he said.

Some insurers will cover weight-loss medications for an initial period then require a certain degree of weight loss before renewing the approval, Dr. Kraftson said.

“While this is reasonable, sometimes it is necessary to titrate a medication more slowly to help a patient get used to the medicine, so they may not reach the required weight loss in the time required by the insurer,” he said. “As such, the medical professional is ‘punished’ for trying to be safe and patient-sensitive, and the patient may lose coverage of the medicine.”

Clinicians can help patients increase their chances for insurance coverage by providing a patient instruction guide to walk them through the steps that allow the patient to make inquiries with their own insurer, Dr. Kraftson said.

This guide should instruct patients on how to read their prescription coverage card to correctly contact their insurer, along with a guide to medical coverage terminology.

Lauren Oshman, MD, also of the University of Michigan, heads a collaborative quality initiative in the state known as Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes (MCT2D). Dr. Oshman and her colleagues created a user-friendly list of terms to help patients understand their plans and better advocate for coverage (see below). The list was designed to guide patients with diabetes but applies to any medication.
 

Learn the lingo (common insurance terms and definitions)

• Deductible: Predetermined amount that must be paid annually before insurance pays for anything.
• Copayment: Set amount paid for a prescription.
• Coinsurance: Amount you pay after your deductible is met. Your insurance pays their portion. Coinsurance only applies to prescriptions and services covered under your health plan.
• Medication tier: Levels of insurance medication coverage; you play a smaller amount for a lower tier and a higher amount for a higher tier.
• Out-of-pocket max: Annual limit on what you pay before insurance covers 100% of covered services. Deductibles, copayment, and coinsurance all apply toward your out-of-pocket maximum.
• Prior authorization: Request made by your doctor to insurance company for coverage of a medication.
• Quantity limit: Limitation on the number of pills covered for a period of time.
• Step therapy: Medication you must have tried prior to approval of a nonpreferred medication, typically prior to trying a more expensive medication.

(Source: Learn the Lingo: A Guide to Common Insurance Terms and Definitions, courtesy of Lauren Oshman, MD, and MCT2D)

Also, make sure patients understand that they need to find out whether they have a deductible and if so, how much it is, Dr. Kraftson said.

Pros and cons of compounding

Compounded drugs are not approved by the FDA; however, that does not mean they are not available, and patients may pursue them as an option for weight-loss drugs.

In a statement issued on May 31, 2023, the FDA cited reports of adverse events associated with the use of compounded weight-loss drugs as a lower-cost alternative to the approved product. The FDA emphasized that the agency does not review compounded versions of weight-loss drugs for safety, efficacy, or quality.

Dr. Kraftson cited the lack of quality control, transparency, and safety data as reasons to discourage his patients from pursuing compounded medications.

“If a patient insists on pursuing it, then I review the position statement from the Obesity Medicine Association,” he said. The OMA statement recommends that anti-obesity medications undergo clinical trials and noted the lack of FDA oversight on these products. The OMA statement also advises compounded peptides to be “legally produced by companies whose identities are readily disclosed, and who have documented manufacturing processes compliant with oversight by applicable regulatory agencies.”
 

Tracking outcomes might boost coverage

Robust data on the long-term cost-effectiveness of weight-loss medications are lacking, although this is changing, Dr. Kraftson said. A 2022 study published last year in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that a 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide was cost-effective, compared with no treatment, diet and exercise, and other anti-obesity medications based on gains in quality of life.

“Regardless, insurers are not as motivated by long-term cost effectiveness,” Dr. Kraftson said. Insurers are accustomed to employee turnover and are more likely to be motivated by short-term costs and benefits, he said. “Obesity treatment provides some short-term benefit, but the majority of the benefit can be experienced when we look at the long-term horizon,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need better ways to account for the myriad benefits experienced by patients with successful weight control beyond what is currently measured as metrics of success, including better ways to qualify and quantify quality-of-life benefits,” Dr. Kraftson said.

Also, clinicians should address the stigma associated with obesity, Dr. Kraftson said.

“We would not see the spate of coverage restrictions if we were talking about heart disease or cancer; insurers can get away with this because obesity is held to a different standard and patients with obesity are used to being undertreated and mistreated by the medical community and society,” he said. “We need to better account for the true costs of excess weight/obesity beyond what is traditionally accepted. This would help make the case for the cost-effective nature of treatment.”

Dr. Kraftson and Dr. Oshman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kahan had no financial conflicts and serves on the Medscape Editorial Advisory Board.

You can’t argue with success, unless you are an insurance company faced with covering medications shown to improve obesity.

The ability of drugs originally designed for diabetes management to reduce body weight has spiked demand and taxed supplies, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which included semaglutide (both Wegovy and Ozempic) on its Drug Shortages List as of May 31, 2023.

Meanwhile, clinicians and patients report that insurance companies are pushing back against coverage of these medications that mimic glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) because of the costs. A recent study conducted by Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit management organization, showed that individuals who started GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and who were adherent to the treatment averaged a 59% increase in health care costs after 1 year; for those in a subgroup analysis who were treatment adherent, the increase in health care costs was 98%.

“Insurance coverage for obesity treatment is challenging, particularly regarding medications,” said Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness at George Washington University, Washington, in an interview. Employers must opt in for patients to have coverage for these medications; therefore, relatively few patients have had access at reasonable out-of-pocket costs, he said.

For example, the University of Texas stated on its website that its prescription drug plans will no longer cover drugs with the active ingredients semaglutide (Wegovy) or liraglutide (Saxenda) for weight loss as of Sept. 1, 2023. Both products are FDA-approved for weight management, whereas the equally popular Ozempic is currently approved only as a treatment for diabetes. The school’s website noted that the current price of the drugs, which cost the plan more than $5 million per month as of May 2023, outstrips the most expensive cancer agents.

The University of Texas also found that among its patients, the compliance rate for those who began Wegovy or Saxenda for weight loss was only 46%, which was not enough to justify continued coverage. The plan advised patients to approach their insurers directly.

Eventually, more information may prompt more support from insurance across a range of medications, Dr. Kahan noted. “Most insurers are wanting cost-effectiveness data in order to support their investments in broader coverage,” he said.

However, costs do vary with and without insurance; some medications are less expensive than others without significant differences in outcomes, so encourage patients to explore all the options and not just one brand, Dr. Kahan said.
 

Educate patients on plan details

Clinicians can’t guarantee coverage, but they can offer guidance to their patients, according to said Andrew Kraftson, MD, an endocrinologist and internal medicine physician at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in the care of people with obesity.

Unfortunately, some of the challenges to obtaining insurance coverage for weight-loss medications lie in the plan details because some insurers have a blanket prohibition against the use of weight-loss medications, he said.

If patients did not look for this particular aspect of coverage at the time of enrollment in their chosen plan, they may not have known about this exclusion, and they are disappointed to find that they are ineligible for weight-loss medications despite medical circumstances, Dr. Kraftson said in an interview.

If weight-loss medications are covered, prior authorization often is required, Dr. Kraftson added.

“Unfortunately, the requirements vary from insurer to insurer, and this can present challenges for the busy clinicians who may not have dedicated staff to assist with these authorizations. Sometimes, the requirements are exactingly particular, and denials can commonly occur,” he said.

Some insurers will cover weight-loss medications for an initial period then require a certain degree of weight loss before renewing the approval, Dr. Kraftson said.

“While this is reasonable, sometimes it is necessary to titrate a medication more slowly to help a patient get used to the medicine, so they may not reach the required weight loss in the time required by the insurer,” he said. “As such, the medical professional is ‘punished’ for trying to be safe and patient-sensitive, and the patient may lose coverage of the medicine.”

Clinicians can help patients increase their chances for insurance coverage by providing a patient instruction guide to walk them through the steps that allow the patient to make inquiries with their own insurer, Dr. Kraftson said.

This guide should instruct patients on how to read their prescription coverage card to correctly contact their insurer, along with a guide to medical coverage terminology.

Lauren Oshman, MD, also of the University of Michigan, heads a collaborative quality initiative in the state known as Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes (MCT2D). Dr. Oshman and her colleagues created a user-friendly list of terms to help patients understand their plans and better advocate for coverage (see below). The list was designed to guide patients with diabetes but applies to any medication.
 

Learn the lingo (common insurance terms and definitions)

• Deductible: Predetermined amount that must be paid annually before insurance pays for anything.
• Copayment: Set amount paid for a prescription.
• Coinsurance: Amount you pay after your deductible is met. Your insurance pays their portion. Coinsurance only applies to prescriptions and services covered under your health plan.
• Medication tier: Levels of insurance medication coverage; you play a smaller amount for a lower tier and a higher amount for a higher tier.
• Out-of-pocket max: Annual limit on what you pay before insurance covers 100% of covered services. Deductibles, copayment, and coinsurance all apply toward your out-of-pocket maximum.
• Prior authorization: Request made by your doctor to insurance company for coverage of a medication.
• Quantity limit: Limitation on the number of pills covered for a period of time.
• Step therapy: Medication you must have tried prior to approval of a nonpreferred medication, typically prior to trying a more expensive medication.

(Source: Learn the Lingo: A Guide to Common Insurance Terms and Definitions, courtesy of Lauren Oshman, MD, and MCT2D)

Also, make sure patients understand that they need to find out whether they have a deductible and if so, how much it is, Dr. Kraftson said.

Pros and cons of compounding

Compounded drugs are not approved by the FDA; however, that does not mean they are not available, and patients may pursue them as an option for weight-loss drugs.

In a statement issued on May 31, 2023, the FDA cited reports of adverse events associated with the use of compounded weight-loss drugs as a lower-cost alternative to the approved product. The FDA emphasized that the agency does not review compounded versions of weight-loss drugs for safety, efficacy, or quality.

Dr. Kraftson cited the lack of quality control, transparency, and safety data as reasons to discourage his patients from pursuing compounded medications.

“If a patient insists on pursuing it, then I review the position statement from the Obesity Medicine Association,” he said. The OMA statement recommends that anti-obesity medications undergo clinical trials and noted the lack of FDA oversight on these products. The OMA statement also advises compounded peptides to be “legally produced by companies whose identities are readily disclosed, and who have documented manufacturing processes compliant with oversight by applicable regulatory agencies.”
 

Tracking outcomes might boost coverage

Robust data on the long-term cost-effectiveness of weight-loss medications are lacking, although this is changing, Dr. Kraftson said. A 2022 study published last year in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that a 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide was cost-effective, compared with no treatment, diet and exercise, and other anti-obesity medications based on gains in quality of life.

“Regardless, insurers are not as motivated by long-term cost effectiveness,” Dr. Kraftson said. Insurers are accustomed to employee turnover and are more likely to be motivated by short-term costs and benefits, he said. “Obesity treatment provides some short-term benefit, but the majority of the benefit can be experienced when we look at the long-term horizon,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need better ways to account for the myriad benefits experienced by patients with successful weight control beyond what is currently measured as metrics of success, including better ways to qualify and quantify quality-of-life benefits,” Dr. Kraftson said.

Also, clinicians should address the stigma associated with obesity, Dr. Kraftson said.

“We would not see the spate of coverage restrictions if we were talking about heart disease or cancer; insurers can get away with this because obesity is held to a different standard and patients with obesity are used to being undertreated and mistreated by the medical community and society,” he said. “We need to better account for the true costs of excess weight/obesity beyond what is traditionally accepted. This would help make the case for the cost-effective nature of treatment.”

Dr. Kraftson and Dr. Oshman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kahan had no financial conflicts and serves on the Medscape Editorial Advisory Board.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

A process your body uses to stay warm in cool weather could one day lead to new therapies for obesity.

Scientists have, for the first time, mapped the precise nerve pathways that activate brown fat, or brown adipose tissue (BAT), a specialized fat that generates heat. Low temperatures kick brown fat into gear, helping the body keep its temperature and burning calories in the process.

“It has long been speculated that activating this type of fat may be useful in treating obesity and related metabolic conditions,” said Preethi Srikanthan, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine who oversaw the research at the UCLA School of Medicine. “The challenge has been finding a way of selectively stimulating [it].”

Brown fat is different from the fat typically linked to obesity: the kind that accumulates around the belly, hips, and thighs. That’s white fat. White fat stores energy; brown fat burns it. That’s because brown fat cells have more mitochondria, a part of the cell that generates energy. 

After dissecting the necks of eight human cadavers, Dr. Srikanthan and her team traced the sympathetic nerve branches in the fat pad above the collarbone – where the largest depot of brown fat in adults is stored. They stained the nerves, took samples, and viewed them under a microscope. 

They found that nerves from brown fat traveled to the third and fourth cranial nerves of the brain, bundles of nerve fibers that control blinking and some eye movements.

In a previous case study, damage to these nerves appeared to block a chemical tracer from reaching brown fat. The evidence suggests that changing this nerve supply could alter brown fat activity, potentially leading to new treatments for obesity and metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes, Dr. Srikanthan said.
 

A possible mechanism for Ozempic?

Brown fat has already been linked to at least one breakthrough in obesity treatment. Some evidence suggests that popular medications like semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro) may affect brown fat activity. These belong to a class of drugs known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. They work by mimicking the hormone GLP-1, which is released in the gut and brain in response to eating glucose (sugary foods or drinks).

“GLP-1 agonists have been shown to increase [brown fat] activity in rodents and humans, but likely indirectly, via activation of specific regions in the brain,” explained Varman Samuel, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endocrinology for the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. 

The scientific literature is divided on this, but there is enough evidence to support further inquiry, Dr. Srikanthan said. Her team has begun a study to examine that link.
 

Opening the door to future obesity treatments

But their discovery means other new treatments could be on the horizon. 

Previous research had shown that the sympathetic nervous system drives brown fat activity. But now that the UCLA scientists have revealed the exact nerves connecting brown fat to the sympathetic nervous system, we could find ways to stimulate those pathways to activate brown fat – without stimulating the many organs (such as the heart and stomach) also connected to this vast network of nerves, Dr. Srikanthan said. 

Methods for doing that could include medication, electrical stimulation, or heat therapy, according to the study. 

Still, there is reason to temper expectations. “[Brown fat] depots, while highly metabolically active, are quite small,” Dr. Samuel said. “So, the overall contribution to whole-body energy balance in humans will likely be small.”

On the other hand, that prediction doesn’t account for what we don’t know. 

“We’re learning more about how tissues communicate with each other, beyond the release of hormones or metabolites,” Dr. Samuel said. Activating brown fat could trigger “signals that help coordinate whole-body energy metabolism.”

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

A process your body uses to stay warm in cool weather could one day lead to new therapies for obesity.

Scientists have, for the first time, mapped the precise nerve pathways that activate brown fat, or brown adipose tissue (BAT), a specialized fat that generates heat. Low temperatures kick brown fat into gear, helping the body keep its temperature and burning calories in the process.

“It has long been speculated that activating this type of fat may be useful in treating obesity and related metabolic conditions,” said Preethi Srikanthan, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine who oversaw the research at the UCLA School of Medicine. “The challenge has been finding a way of selectively stimulating [it].”

Brown fat is different from the fat typically linked to obesity: the kind that accumulates around the belly, hips, and thighs. That’s white fat. White fat stores energy; brown fat burns it. That’s because brown fat cells have more mitochondria, a part of the cell that generates energy. 

After dissecting the necks of eight human cadavers, Dr. Srikanthan and her team traced the sympathetic nerve branches in the fat pad above the collarbone – where the largest depot of brown fat in adults is stored. They stained the nerves, took samples, and viewed them under a microscope. 

They found that nerves from brown fat traveled to the third and fourth cranial nerves of the brain, bundles of nerve fibers that control blinking and some eye movements.

In a previous case study, damage to these nerves appeared to block a chemical tracer from reaching brown fat. The evidence suggests that changing this nerve supply could alter brown fat activity, potentially leading to new treatments for obesity and metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes, Dr. Srikanthan said.
 

A possible mechanism for Ozempic?

Brown fat has already been linked to at least one breakthrough in obesity treatment. Some evidence suggests that popular medications like semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro) may affect brown fat activity. These belong to a class of drugs known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. They work by mimicking the hormone GLP-1, which is released in the gut and brain in response to eating glucose (sugary foods or drinks).

“GLP-1 agonists have been shown to increase [brown fat] activity in rodents and humans, but likely indirectly, via activation of specific regions in the brain,” explained Varman Samuel, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endocrinology for the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. 

The scientific literature is divided on this, but there is enough evidence to support further inquiry, Dr. Srikanthan said. Her team has begun a study to examine that link.
 

Opening the door to future obesity treatments

But their discovery means other new treatments could be on the horizon. 

Previous research had shown that the sympathetic nervous system drives brown fat activity. But now that the UCLA scientists have revealed the exact nerves connecting brown fat to the sympathetic nervous system, we could find ways to stimulate those pathways to activate brown fat – without stimulating the many organs (such as the heart and stomach) also connected to this vast network of nerves, Dr. Srikanthan said. 

Methods for doing that could include medication, electrical stimulation, or heat therapy, according to the study. 

Still, there is reason to temper expectations. “[Brown fat] depots, while highly metabolically active, are quite small,” Dr. Samuel said. “So, the overall contribution to whole-body energy balance in humans will likely be small.”

On the other hand, that prediction doesn’t account for what we don’t know. 

“We’re learning more about how tissues communicate with each other, beyond the release of hormones or metabolites,” Dr. Samuel said. Activating brown fat could trigger “signals that help coordinate whole-body energy metabolism.”

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

A process your body uses to stay warm in cool weather could one day lead to new therapies for obesity.

Scientists have, for the first time, mapped the precise nerve pathways that activate brown fat, or brown adipose tissue (BAT), a specialized fat that generates heat. Low temperatures kick brown fat into gear, helping the body keep its temperature and burning calories in the process.

“It has long been speculated that activating this type of fat may be useful in treating obesity and related metabolic conditions,” said Preethi Srikanthan, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine who oversaw the research at the UCLA School of Medicine. “The challenge has been finding a way of selectively stimulating [it].”

Brown fat is different from the fat typically linked to obesity: the kind that accumulates around the belly, hips, and thighs. That’s white fat. White fat stores energy; brown fat burns it. That’s because brown fat cells have more mitochondria, a part of the cell that generates energy. 

After dissecting the necks of eight human cadavers, Dr. Srikanthan and her team traced the sympathetic nerve branches in the fat pad above the collarbone – where the largest depot of brown fat in adults is stored. They stained the nerves, took samples, and viewed them under a microscope. 

They found that nerves from brown fat traveled to the third and fourth cranial nerves of the brain, bundles of nerve fibers that control blinking and some eye movements.

In a previous case study, damage to these nerves appeared to block a chemical tracer from reaching brown fat. The evidence suggests that changing this nerve supply could alter brown fat activity, potentially leading to new treatments for obesity and metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes, Dr. Srikanthan said.
 

A possible mechanism for Ozempic?

Brown fat has already been linked to at least one breakthrough in obesity treatment. Some evidence suggests that popular medications like semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro) may affect brown fat activity. These belong to a class of drugs known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. They work by mimicking the hormone GLP-1, which is released in the gut and brain in response to eating glucose (sugary foods or drinks).

“GLP-1 agonists have been shown to increase [brown fat] activity in rodents and humans, but likely indirectly, via activation of specific regions in the brain,” explained Varman Samuel, MD, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endocrinology for the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. 

The scientific literature is divided on this, but there is enough evidence to support further inquiry, Dr. Srikanthan said. Her team has begun a study to examine that link.
 

Opening the door to future obesity treatments

But their discovery means other new treatments could be on the horizon. 

Previous research had shown that the sympathetic nervous system drives brown fat activity. But now that the UCLA scientists have revealed the exact nerves connecting brown fat to the sympathetic nervous system, we could find ways to stimulate those pathways to activate brown fat – without stimulating the many organs (such as the heart and stomach) also connected to this vast network of nerves, Dr. Srikanthan said. 

Methods for doing that could include medication, electrical stimulation, or heat therapy, according to the study. 

Still, there is reason to temper expectations. “[Brown fat] depots, while highly metabolically active, are quite small,” Dr. Samuel said. “So, the overall contribution to whole-body energy balance in humans will likely be small.”

On the other hand, that prediction doesn’t account for what we don’t know. 

“We’re learning more about how tissues communicate with each other, beyond the release of hormones or metabolites,” Dr. Samuel said. Activating brown fat could trigger “signals that help coordinate whole-body energy metabolism.”

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – The occurrence of a fracture predicts future fracture risk, but the increase in risk is the same no matter what the age of the patient, according to a new population-based study drawn from the Manitoba BMD Registry.

The work expands previous studies that focused mostly on fracture risk prediction after a first fracture among individuals aged 45-50 and older. Other limitations of prior studies include large age categories (such as “premenopausal”), reliance on self-reporting, and small sample sizes.

As a result, some guidelines recommend considering fracture history only for patients older than a certain age when assessing for future risk, such as with the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). The new study suggests a potential need to reconsider that stance.

“The [percentage] of increased risk from having had prevalent fractures in the past, no matter what your age, is about the same. I think that it’s really paradigm shifting because [when] most of us think [of] young people who fracture, we’re not thinking of osteoporosis or future fracture risk. We’re not saying, ‘Oh, I had a fracture when I was 25. When I’m 70, I should be thinking about osteoporosis.’ So, I think this study is quite eye-opening that way,” Carrie Ye, MD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, said in an interview.

Participants of younger age who are referred for dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) likely represent a population at increased risk of osteoporosis, according to Dr. Ye. “Maybe they have Crohn’s disease or maybe they’re on a bunch of steroids, and so a clinician has flagged them,” said Dr. Ye, who is an assistant professor and rheumatologist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton.

The researchers limited the analysis to nontraumatic fractures, but session moderator Nicholas Harvey, MD, PhD, wondered if a similar finding would occur with traumatic fractures. In an interview, he noted that researchers led by William Leslie, MD, at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, found that prior traumatic fracture also predicted future low bone-mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture. “I think that would have been one interesting question,” said Dr. Harvey, director of the Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre at the University of Southampton, England.

Dr. Ye’s study included 88,696 individuals who underwent a first DXA scan between 1996 and 2018, which researchers then linked to provincial administrative health data collected between 1979 and 2018. The mean age at first DXA was 64.6 years, and 90.3% were women. Their mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m². Current smokers made up 10.1% of the cohort, 5.5% had a history of prolonged glucocorticoid use, 3.1% had rheumatoid arthritis, and among 14.9% of patients, there was a secondary cause of osteoporosis. Over a median 25.1 years of observation prior to DXA, clinical fracture occurred in 23.8% of participants.

The mean age of the patients at the time of their first prior fracture was 57.7 years. Over a mean 9.0 years of follow-up, 14.6% of participants experienced a fracture of any kind, 14.0% had osteoporotic fractures, 10.6% had a major osteoporotic fracture (nonankle), and 3.5% had a hip fracture. Among persons aged 20-29 years to 80 years or older, the adjusted hazard ratios for future fractures were similar, ranging from 1.51 to 2.12 (P for trend = .120).

The results were similar when age groups were analyzed with regard to all fractures, osteoporotic fractures, major osteoporotic fractures, or hip fractures.

Going forward, Dr. Ye hopes to expand the research into childhood fractures. “They can break their bones pretty easily, especially as they’re going through growth spurts and things like that,” she said.

Asked what her advice to physicians would be, Dr. Ye responded: “Don’t ignore prior fractures, even if they occurred at an early age. I think if someone’s had a fracture, they bought themselves a fracture risk assessment, and that doesn’t mean necessarily a DXA scan. It means you go through their other risk factors: What medications are they on? Do they have a family history? Are they super low BMI? Look at other reasons why you should be worried about their bones, and if you should be worried about their bones, certainly [measure their] BMD and see what’s going on.”

Dr. Ye and Dr. Harvey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.

I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.

However, the million-dollar question is whether remission of T2D can be maintained in the long term in the real-world setting of primary care, which is chiefly where T2D is managed.

I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
 

Remarkable weight loss

Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.

Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.

Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.

This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.

He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m²). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.

In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.

Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.

Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.

He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.

This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
 

New terminology proposed

Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.

Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.

Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.

The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.

Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.

Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.

Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”

Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

VANCOUVER – A highly controlled retrospective analysis suggests that denosumab (Prolia) leads to greater reduction in fracture risk than does zoledronic acid (Reclast) among treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

A previous head-to-head comparison showed that denosumab increased bone mineral density at key skeletal sites compared with zoledronic acid, but only a single, small observational study has examined fracture risk, and it found no difference.

The new study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, used a relatively new method of real-world comparative effectiveness analysis called negative control outcome (NCO) to analyze Medicare fee-for-service data.

NCO analysis takes extra pains to remove bias through data that might be linked to potential confounders but could not reasonably be attributed to a drug. For example, people who have greater contact with the health care system may be more likely to get one drug or another. The researchers used the frequency of receiving a flu or pneumonia vaccine as a proxy for this. If the two comparison groups had a significant difference in a proxy, it suggested a hidden bias and forced the researchers to abandon those groupings. Another example used car accidents as a proxy for cognitive impairment.

“If you find meaningful differences between the two groups, and you can say there’s no way a bone drug could account for these differences, then we shouldn’t do this analysis because these groups just aren’t comparable. They probably differ by that confounding factor we couldn’t measure,” said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, who presented the study. He is a professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The study strongly suggests superiority for denosumab. “There was a significant difference in multiple different groupings of fractures – beginning at year 2, extending to year 3 and even out to year 5 – that showed that there is a significant reduction in fracture risk if you get treated with denosumab [that was greater] than if you get treated with zoledronic acid,” Dr. Curtis said.

The researchers weighed 118 covariates and ultimately identified a population of 90,805 women taking denosumab and 37,328 taking zoledronic acid that was equally balanced in all patient characteristics. The mean age was about 75 years in the denosumab group and 74 in the zoledronic acid group.

The researchers found a 34% lower risk for hip fracture in the denosumab group by 5 years (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90).

Similar patterns in fracture risk reduction were observed at 5 years for nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82), nonhip nonvertebral fracture (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), and major osteoporotic fracture (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89).

During the Q&A session after the talk, one audience member commented that the study was limited because the researchers only followed patients who received zoledronic acid for 60 days, which could have missed potential long-term benefits of the drug, especially since bisphosphonates have a lengthy skeletal retention time. Dr. Curtis acknowledged the point but said, “Usually, that’s not something we do, but these are different enough mechanisms of action that it may be warranted at least as a sensitivity analysis,” he said.

The study and its methodology were impressive, according to Yumie Rhee, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think they did a really good job by doing the negative control analysis. We’re not going to have a head-to-head clinical trial, so we don’t know the real fracture reduction differences [between denosumab and zoledronic acid]. [The NCO analysis] is more than the propensity matching score that we do usually,” said Dr. Rhee, who is a professor of endocrinology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

In particular, the study showed a significantly greater reduction in hip fractures with denosumab. “Even in the RCTs, it was really hard to see the reduction in hip fracture, so I think this is showing much stronger data for denosumab. Especially in patients who have more [general fracture] risk and patients with higher hip fracture risk, I would go with denosumab,” Dr. Rhee said.

Her comoderator, Maria Zanchetta, MD, agreed. “It can have clinical implication, because we think denosumab is better than [zoledronic acid] for higher-risk patients, but we didn’t have the evidence. So at least we have a new [study] to look at, and I think it’s very important for our practice,” said Dr. Zanchetta, who is a professor of osteology at the Institute of Diagnostics and Metabolic Research, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Curtis has consulted for Amgen. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Zanchetta report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Look at this guy – NFL Chargers jersey and shorts with a RVCA hat on backward. And next to him, a woman wearing her spin-class-Lulu gear. There’s also a guy sporting a 2016 San Diego Rock ‘n Roll Marathon Tee. And that young woman is actually wearing slippers. A visitor from the 1950s would be thunderstruck to see such casual wear on people waiting to board a plane. Photos from that era show men buttoned up in white shirt and tie and women wearing Chanel with hats and white gloves. This dramatic transformation from formal to unfussy wear cuts through all social situations, including in my office. As a new doc out of residency, I used to wear a tie and shoes that could hold a shine. Now I wear jogger scrubs and sneakers. Rather than be offended by the lack of formality though, patients seem to appreciate it. Should they?

At first glance this seems to be a modern phenomenon. The reasons for casual wear today are manifold: about one-third of people work from home, Millennials are taking over with their TikTok values and general irreverence, COVID made us all fat and lazy. Heck, even the U.S. Senate briefly abolished the requirement to wear suits on the Senate floor. But getting dressed up was never to signal that you are elite or superior to others. It’s the opposite. To get dressed is a signal that you are serving others, a tradition that is as old as society.

Kaiser Permanente

Think of Downton Abbey as an example. The servants were always required to be smartly dressed when working, whereas members of the family could be dressed up or not. It’s clear who is serving whom. This tradition lives today in the hospitality industry. When you mosey into the lobby of a luxury hotel in your Rainbow sandals you can expect everyone who greets you will be in finery, signaling that they put in effort to serve you. You’ll find the same for all staff at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which is no coincidence.

Suits used to be standard in medicine. In the 19th century, physicians wore formal black-tie when seeing patients. Unlike hospitality however, we had good reason to eschew the tradition: germs. Once we figured out that our pus-stained ties and jackets were doing harm, we switched to wearing sanitized uniforms. Casual wear for doctors isn’t a modern phenomenon after all, then. For proof, compare Thomas Eakins painting “The Gross Clinic” (1875) with his later “The Agnew Clinic” (1889). In the former, Dr. Gross is portrayed in formal black wear, bloody hand and all. In the latter, Dr. Agnew is wearing white FIGS (or the 1890’s equivalent anyway). Similarly, nurses uniforms traditionally resembled kitchen servants, with criss-cross aprons and floor length skirts. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that nurses stopped wearing dresses and white caps.

photo of painting MiguelHermoso/CC-BY-SA-4.0

In the operating theater it’s obviously critical that we wear sanitized scrubs to mitigate the risk of infection. Originally white to signal cleanliness, scrubs were changed to blue-green because surgeons were blinded by the lights bouncing off the uniforms. (Green is also opposite red on the color wheel, supposedly enhancing the ability to distinguish shades of red).

But in outpatient medicine, the effect size for preventing infection by not wearing a tie or jacket is less obvious. In addition to protecting patients, it seems that wearing scrubs and donning On Cloud sneakers might also be a bit of push-back from us. Over time we’ve lost significant autonomy in our practice and lost a little respect from our patients. Payers tell us what to do. Patients question our expertise. Choosing what we wear is one of the few bits of medicine we still have agency. Pewter or pink, joggers or cargo pants, we get to choose.

The last time I flew British Airways everyone was in lounge wear, except the flight crew, of course. They were all smartly dressed. Recently British Airways rolled out updated, slightly more relaxed dress codes. Very modern, but I wonder if in a way we’re not all just a bit worse off.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in five adolescents are living with prediabetes, a condition where blood glucose levels are elevated, but are not high enough for a type 2 diabetes (T2D) diagnosis. According to a new study, higher levels of nonfasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, and worsening obesity are important predictors of progression to T2D. In addition, metformin and weight stabilization may prove to be important interventions for preventing T2D in kids.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a retrospective chart review of patient data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center Pediatric Prediabetes Clinic, Nashville, Tenn., from May 2015 to August 2022.
• The study included 552 children with prediabetes, defined as abnormal blood glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 100 mg/dL, random glucose ≥ 150 mg/dL), or hemoglobin A1c equal to or greater than 5.9%.
• Based on follow-up visits, patients were classified as having progressed to T2D, or nonprogression.
• Researchers analyzed the patients’ initial visit A1c, fasting C-peptide, 2-hour glucose, fasting glucose, and body mass index (BMI), among other baseline characteristics.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six children (6.5%) progressed to T2D during the duration of the study period.
• The average time to T2D diagnosis was much longer in patients taking metformin (43 months), compared with those not taking the prescribed medication (28 months).
• Worsening obesity was strongly associated with T2D progression – patients who progressed to T2D had a higher BMI at baseline and had continued weight gain.
• A higher baseline A1c, fasting C-peptide, and 2-hour glucose were also associated with progression to T2D.
• In the multivariable analysis, both A1c and 2-hour glucose were strong independent predictors of progression.
• Fasting plasma glucose was not associated with progression to T2D.

IN PRACTICE:

“Weight stabilization and metformin therapy could be important interventions for diabetes prevention in children,” study author Ashley H. Shoemaker, MD, MSci, a pediatric endocrinologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in a press release.

In addition, A1c plus a nonfasting glucose may be a feasible way to identify high-risk pediatric patients in a clinical setting.
 

SOURCE:

This study was performed by Natasha Belsky, Jaclyn Tamaroff, and Ashley H. Shoemaker of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. It was published October 12, 2023, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society

LIMITATIONS:

Additional patients who developed T2D may have been lost to follow-up, since the authors did not contact patients to confirm their disease status. The authors were also unable to establish racial differences in the progression to T2D because of missing data.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for this study was provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author has research contracts with Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in five adolescents are living with prediabetes, a condition where blood glucose levels are elevated, but are not high enough for a type 2 diabetes (T2D) diagnosis. According to a new study, higher levels of nonfasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, and worsening obesity are important predictors of progression to T2D. In addition, metformin and weight stabilization may prove to be important interventions for preventing T2D in kids.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a retrospective chart review of patient data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center Pediatric Prediabetes Clinic, Nashville, Tenn., from May 2015 to August 2022.
• The study included 552 children with prediabetes, defined as abnormal blood glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 100 mg/dL, random glucose ≥ 150 mg/dL), or hemoglobin A1c equal to or greater than 5.9%.
• Based on follow-up visits, patients were classified as having progressed to T2D, or nonprogression.
• Researchers analyzed the patients’ initial visit A1c, fasting C-peptide, 2-hour glucose, fasting glucose, and body mass index (BMI), among other baseline characteristics.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six children (6.5%) progressed to T2D during the duration of the study period.
• The average time to T2D diagnosis was much longer in patients taking metformin (43 months), compared with those not taking the prescribed medication (28 months).
• Worsening obesity was strongly associated with T2D progression – patients who progressed to T2D had a higher BMI at baseline and had continued weight gain.
• A higher baseline A1c, fasting C-peptide, and 2-hour glucose were also associated with progression to T2D.
• In the multivariable analysis, both A1c and 2-hour glucose were strong independent predictors of progression.
• Fasting plasma glucose was not associated with progression to T2D.

IN PRACTICE:

“Weight stabilization and metformin therapy could be important interventions for diabetes prevention in children,” study author Ashley H. Shoemaker, MD, MSci, a pediatric endocrinologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in a press release.

In addition, A1c plus a nonfasting glucose may be a feasible way to identify high-risk pediatric patients in a clinical setting.
 

SOURCE:

This study was performed by Natasha Belsky, Jaclyn Tamaroff, and Ashley H. Shoemaker of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. It was published October 12, 2023, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society

LIMITATIONS:

Additional patients who developed T2D may have been lost to follow-up, since the authors did not contact patients to confirm their disease status. The authors were also unable to establish racial differences in the progression to T2D because of missing data.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for this study was provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author has research contracts with Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in five adolescents are living with prediabetes, a condition where blood glucose levels are elevated, but are not high enough for a type 2 diabetes (T2D) diagnosis. According to a new study, higher levels of nonfasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, and worsening obesity are important predictors of progression to T2D. In addition, metformin and weight stabilization may prove to be important interventions for preventing T2D in kids.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a retrospective chart review of patient data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center Pediatric Prediabetes Clinic, Nashville, Tenn., from May 2015 to August 2022.
• The study included 552 children with prediabetes, defined as abnormal blood glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 100 mg/dL, random glucose ≥ 150 mg/dL), or hemoglobin A1c equal to or greater than 5.9%.
• Based on follow-up visits, patients were classified as having progressed to T2D, or nonprogression.
• Researchers analyzed the patients’ initial visit A1c, fasting C-peptide, 2-hour glucose, fasting glucose, and body mass index (BMI), among other baseline characteristics.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six children (6.5%) progressed to T2D during the duration of the study period.
• The average time to T2D diagnosis was much longer in patients taking metformin (43 months), compared with those not taking the prescribed medication (28 months).
• Worsening obesity was strongly associated with T2D progression – patients who progressed to T2D had a higher BMI at baseline and had continued weight gain.
• A higher baseline A1c, fasting C-peptide, and 2-hour glucose were also associated with progression to T2D.
• In the multivariable analysis, both A1c and 2-hour glucose were strong independent predictors of progression.
• Fasting plasma glucose was not associated with progression to T2D.

IN PRACTICE:

“Weight stabilization and metformin therapy could be important interventions for diabetes prevention in children,” study author Ashley H. Shoemaker, MD, MSci, a pediatric endocrinologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., said in a press release.

In addition, A1c plus a nonfasting glucose may be a feasible way to identify high-risk pediatric patients in a clinical setting.
 

SOURCE:

This study was performed by Natasha Belsky, Jaclyn Tamaroff, and Ashley H. Shoemaker of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. It was published October 12, 2023, in the Journal of the Endocrine Society

LIMITATIONS:

Additional patients who developed T2D may have been lost to follow-up, since the authors did not contact patients to confirm their disease status. The authors were also unable to establish racial differences in the progression to T2D because of missing data.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for this study was provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. One author has research contracts with Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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