Clinician Reviews

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a complete response letter regarding lebrikizumab, an investigational biologic for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, describing concerns about findings made during an inspection of a third-party contract manufacturer that included the “monoclonal antibody drug substance” for lebrikizumab, Eli Lilly announced in an Oct. 2 press release.

Lebrikizumab is under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis; a complete response letter indicates that the review has been completed, and highlights issues that need to be addressed before a final decision on approval is made.

The press release noted that the agency did not raise any concerns about the clinical data package, safety, or label for lebrikizumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to the cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, and is designed to be administered once per month.

In the press release, the company said it would work with the third-party manufacturer and the FDA to address the feedback “in order to make lebrikizumab available to patients.”

TOPLINE:

Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
• The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
• The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
• Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
• No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”

SOURCE:

Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
• The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
• The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
• Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
• No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”

SOURCE:

Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause, 12 weeks of treatment with vaginal suppositories containing hyaluronic acid (HLA) reduces vulvovaginal symptoms, according to trial results presented at the annual Menopause Meeting. HLA may be a promising nonhormonal therapy for this condition, the researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators randomly assigned 49 women to receive treatment with a vaginal suppository containing 5 mg of HLA or standard-of-care treatment with vaginal estrogen cream (0.01%).
• The trial was conducted between September 2021 and August 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in both treatment arms experienced improvements on the Vulvovaginal Symptom Questionnaire (VSQ), the study’s primary outcome.
• The VSQ assesses vulvovaginal symptoms associated with menopause such as itching, burning, and dryness, as well as the emotional toll of symptoms and their effect on sexual activity.
• Change in VSQ score did not significantly differ between the treatment groups. The measure improved from 5.2 to 1.7 in the group that received estrogen, and from 5.8 to 2.5 in those who received HLA (P = .81).
• No treatment-related severe adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“Women often need to decide between different therapies for genitourinary syndrome of menopause,” study author Benjamin Brucker, MD, of New York University said in an interview. “Now we can help counsel them about this formulation of HLA.”

SOURCE:

Poster P-1 was presented at the 2023 meeting of the Menopause Society, held Sept. 27-30 in Philadelphia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bonafide Health, a company that sells supplements to treat menopause symptoms, including vaginal suppositories containing HLA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis finds that tea drinking may reduce the risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 24%, but the estimate is “uncertain,” and the actual effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% to an increase of 18%, researchers say.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies (11 cohort, three case-control, and one randomized controlled trial) with nearly 2.7 million participants.
• The studies were conducted in Asia, North America, Europe, and Oceania between 1986 and 2015 and included black and green tea.
• Tea consumption was dichotomized as < 1 cup vs. ≥ 1 cups daily. A random effects model was used for data analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• No statistically significant association was found between tea consumption and CRC risk (relative risk, 0.76).
• By geographic region, results of an American subgroup analysis suggested tea drinking might be protective against CRC (RR, 0.33), while data from the United Kingdom (RR, 1.45) and Italian (RR, 1.15) subgroups had opposite results.
• In subgroups by tea type, green tea was associated with a lower CRC risk (RR, 0.05).
• Sensitivity analysis revealed that the effect on CRC risk can range from a reduction of 51% (RR, 0.49) to an increase of 18% (RR, 1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“Taken together, this meta-analysis suggests that tea consumption may not be linked to the development of CRC. These relationships still need to be confirmed by additional well-designed large prospective studies and randomized clinical trials,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Yu Huang and Qiang Chen, with the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

There was a high level of heterogeneity in the original studies, as well as variations in the quantity and types of tea consumed and in the design and quality of the studies. Some studies did not account for potentially important variables, such as alcohol use and diet.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Hebei Provincial Natural Science Foundation and the Hebei Provincial Department of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

Moving from one residence to another after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly increases the risk for death or transition to a long-term care facility as an end-of-life measure, data suggest.

In a prospective study that followed more than 3,000 patients with AMI over 2 decades, each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death.

“This study determined that residential mobility was more important than any other social factor that we studied,” investigator David Alter, MD, PhD, chair of cardiovascular and metabolic research at the University Health Network–Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The results were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moving and mortality

“There’s been very little work, surprisingly, on what happens when individuals move from community to community,” said Dr. Alter. “It is that movement from community to community that is a factor within the social context that needs to be explored better. To the best of our knowledge, up until our study, it has been studied very briefly in the literature.”

The prospective cohort study sample included 3,369 patients who had an AMI between Dec. 1, 1999, and March 30, 2023. The investigators followed participants until death or the last available follow-up date of March 30, 2020. They defined a residential move as a relocation from one postal code region to another.

The investigators drew data from multiple sources, including the prospective, observational Socio-Economic Status and Acute Myocardial Infarction study, which encompassed more than 35,000 patient life-years following hospitalization for a first heart attack in Ontario. Mortality data were collected from the Ontario Registered Persons Data Base. Other sources included Statistics Canada for information on neighborhood income, the Canadian Institutes for Health Information for patients’ clinical factors and comorbidities, and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) database for physician visits. Information on long-term care admissions came from the Continuous Care Reporting System-Long Term Care, OHIP, and the Ontario Drugs Benefit databases, the latter of which also provided information on medication prescriptions for individuals aged 65 years and older.

Patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 101 years (median age, 65 years). About 69% of patients were men. Of the study population, 1,828 patients (54.3%) had at least one residential move during the study period. Approximately 87% died in the community or moved from home into a long-term care facility as an end-of-life destination. Overall, 84.8% of patients who were admitted to long-term care facilities died.

The study also tracked the socioeconomic status of persons living in the postal code regions from and to which patients moved. About 32% of patients moved to a neighborhood with a lower socioeconomic status, and 30.5% moved to an area with a higher socioeconomic status.

Each residential move was associated with a 12% higher rate of death and a 26% higher rate of long-term institutionalization for end-of-life care. In unadjusted analyses, the rate of death was almost double for those who moved more frequently: 44.3% for those who moved two or more times versus 24.8% for those who moved once in 10 years.

Accounting for a multitude of variables, such as the socioeconomic status of areas that patients moved between, is a strength of the study, said Dr. Alter. But the study lacked information about why people moved.

“Where this study has a huge amount of strength is that it was designed specifically to really understand a patient’s clinical and psychosocial profile at the start of their journey, their first AMI. But the fact that we took it from heart attack onward is also a strength because it characterizes and anchors a clinical context in which we were following patients out,” said Dr. Alter.
 

‘An important marker’

In a comment, Paul Oh, MD, medical director of the cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation program at University Health Network, said: “This is a very well-designed study and analysis from a cohort that has provided important insights about the role of socioeconomic factors and long-term outcomes post MI over many years.” Dr. Oh did not participate in the study.

“A few covariates that could impact on outcomes, like institutionalization, were not available to include in adjusted analyses – e.g., functional status, frailty, mild cognitive changes, and availability of social supports in the home,” he said.

The findings add another variable that cardiologists who care for post-MI patients need to be aware of, Dr. Oh added. “Clinicians need better awareness that the need to change residence is an important marker of changing health status and may portend end-of-life events in the near future. The need to change residence can signal an important change in physical, cognitive, and social circumstances that needs to be further explored during clinical encounters, with the goal of identifying and addressing any potentially reversible issues and identifying additional supports that may help that individual continue to live independently in their own home.”

The study was supported by ICES, which receives funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health. The investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oh serves on research boards for Lilly and Novartis and receives research funding from Apple.

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

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

A lack of standardized blood pressure training among doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and other health care professionals is preventing the country’s medical community from curbing hypertension, according to the American Medical Association. Hypertension affects about half of U.S. adults and is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease.

First-year medical students typically read about BP measurement in a textbook and possibly attend a lecture before practicing using a manual cuff a few times on classmates, said Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The dearth of BP instruction is alarming because inaccurate readings contribute to under- and overtreatment of hypertension, she said in an interview.

The AMA hopes $100,000 in grants to five health education schools will help improve BP instruction. The group recently announced it would give $20,000 each to five schools that train health professionals, expanding on a 2021 program to improve BP measurement training.

The new grants for interactive lessons will benefit nearly 5,000 students from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; University of Washington, Seattle; Stony Brook (N.Y.) University; and the University of Pittsburgh.

In a 2021 survey of 571 clinicians, most of whom were cardiologists, Dr. Gulati found that only 23% performed accurate BP measurements despite the majority saying they trusted BP readings taken in their clinic. Accurate readings were defined as routinely checking BP in both arms, checking BP at least twice each visit, and waiting 5 minutes before taking the reading.

Med students fare no better when it comes to BP skills. In a 2017 study of 159 students from medical schools in 37 states, only one student demonstrated proficiency in all 11 elements necessary to measure BP accurately. Students, on average, performed just four of them correctly.

The elements of proper BP measurement include patients resting for 5 minutes before the measurement with legs uncrossed, feet on floor, and arm supported, not talking, reading, or using cell phone; BP taken in both arms with correct size of cuff placed over bare arm; and identifying BP from the arm with the higher reading as clinically more important and as the one to use for future readings.

Manual BP readings require an appropriately sized BP cuff, a sphygmomanometer, and a clinician skilled in using a stethoscope and auscultatory method. Meanwhile, automated readings require a clinician to place the cuff, but a digital device collects the measurement. Though preference depends on the setting and clinician, automated readings are more common. In Dr. Gulati’s study, automated BP assessment was used by 58% of respondents.

Depending on the BP device and technique, significant variations in readings can occur. In a 2021 study, Current Hypertension Reports found that automated readings may more closely reflect the patient’s baseline BP and produce results similar to ambulatory monitoring by a medical professional. An earlier JAMA Internal Medicine analysis found that clinicians’ manual readings reflect higher BP measurements than automated readings.

Though the AMA offers a free online series on BP measurement for students, making the training available to more health care team members can help prevent hypertension, said Kate Kirley, MD, director of the AMA’s chronic disease prevention and programs.

Concern over the lack of standardized BP techniques isn’t new. In 2019, the American Heart Association and the AMA created an online BP course for health care workers. Two years later, the AMA offered grants to five medical schools for training courses.

Most of the new training sessions already on the AMA website take students about 15 minutes to complete. Dr. Kirley says because equipment varies across settings, participants will learn how to conduct manual, semi-automated, and automated office BP readings and identify workarounds for less-than-ideal room setups that can skew results. They will also explore how to guide patients in performing BP readings at home.

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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